Case law

Anderson v. Larson

327 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2003

IV 20 Qualified immunity shields government officials from federal suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … The inquiry "focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of the official's acts," and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because "a reasonably competent public official

Nicol v. Auburn-Washburn USD 437

231 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … Ordinarily, for a law to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision" on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff

Mercado v. City of Orlando

323 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2004

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (holding, in the context of “clearly established law,” that “[o]fficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because … The Court thus, finds that the law was not clearly established and that. Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse, as his supervising officer, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ruffino v. Sheahan

61 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation occurred and that the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Erwin v.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera Monroig

30 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established” in this Circuit. … In addition, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from political discrimination and actual or constructive patronage dismissals was clearly established in the First Circuit

Johnson v. City of Chester

10 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1998

Qualified and Legislative Immunity Defendants next seek qualified immunity for Police Commissioner Butler, and both legislative and qualified immunity for Mayor Wilson, for their alleged actions. … Such rights are among the most well-known and clearly-established in our Constitution.

Shultz v. Allegheny County

835 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2011

Accordingly, absolute or qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leve *25 to v. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

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.

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

876 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … “The . dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.

Jeffers v. Gomez

240 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2001

Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … The district court correctly determined that the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law governing Appellants’ conduct was clearly established—had been met.

Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

135 F. Supp. 2d 1198 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2001

This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1367 . … rules that were “clearly established” at the *1217 time it was taken.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Robinson v. Cook

863 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2012

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The defendants argue that even if Mario’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established

Butts v. City of Bowling Green

374 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jun 23, 2005

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth and ( … violation was clearly established and whether, in light of the clearly established law, Detective Raley’s actions were unreasonable.

Nathan Rinne v. Camden County

65 F.4th 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2023

Hasty moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … A public official enjoys qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated one of the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Amy Sanders v. Lamar Jones

845 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because Sanders cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right. … immunity grounds); see generally Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Stephen Hanes v. Thomas Zurick

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

the court indicated that the right was clearly established. … was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Williams v. Kaufman County

352 F.3d 994 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2003

Qualified Immunity Standard To prevail in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must overcome an officer’s defense of qualified immunity. Last term, in Hope v. … Whether the law was “clearly established” Although we hold today that the prolonged detention of plaintiffs was unlawful, we nonetheless agree with the district court that qualified immunity shields

Boyd v. Arnone

48 F. Supp. 3d 210 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.