Case law

Thornton v. Kaplan

937 F. Supp. 1441 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 7, 1996

Accordingly, in the absence of such a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, defendant Skougstad is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 free speech claim. … required in the qualified immunity analysis.

Sutton v. Tompkins County

617 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 25, 2007

Under federal law, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not *98 violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent … When qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. See Cecere, 967 F.2d at 829 .

Tucker v. Cty Richmond, KY

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 28, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that “a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

DelMonico v. Traynor

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 14, 2013

A qualified privilege requires the plaintiff to establish express malice. … Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.2007), characterized Myers as establishing “the principle of the litigation privilege in Florida, essentially providing legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings.”

Brewster v. Shasta County

27 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 28, 2001

in which the determination of qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” … “clearly established right” violated by their suggestive conduct in relation to the photo array and live lineup.

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees

479 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2007

of clearly established law. … Government officials do not enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Thomas Patrick Walsh v. Nicholas Mellas and Harry Martin

837 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1988

It was not “plain error” for the district court to deny Mellas and Martin qualified immunity. … Defendants’ delay in pursuing the qualified immunity issue has frustrated these important goals.

Thorpe v. Weaver

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 8, 2026

To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show: “(1) that the [officer] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Plaintiffs cannot show that Weaver violated clearly established law. Even if Weaver learned of Boykin’s distress, we still grant her qualified immunity.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Harper v. Carbon County School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … But even if the court concluded that Defendants did violate a right, qualified immunity still applies because the right is not clearly established.

Sondra Weisbrod v. Virginia Donigan, Individually and as an Employee of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

651 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 1981

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the record establishes they did not act in disregard of clearly established constitutional rights or with a malicious intent to deprive plaintiff of her rights. *336 Wood v … Because we uphold the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach defendants’ claim of absolute immunity.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

Jones v. Buchanan

325 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

“[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … immunity. 7 Thus, years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a handcuffed, secured citizen, who posed no threat

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

Blair v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2000

is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense. … However, assuming the officers succeed in their appeal of this court’s order, it could be determined that a reasonable officer would not have known that his actions violated a clearly-established right, and that the officers

De Ventura v. Keith

169 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials, such as law enforcement officials, are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established rights … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). 1 To obtain qualified immunity under Saucier, Defendant Keith must establish that in light of the clearly established law on probable cause for warrantless arrests, he reasonably

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”