Case law

Pace v. City of Palmetto

489 F. Supp. 2d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 12, 2007

In this Circuit, the law may be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by opinions from the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, or the highest court of the state in whose … Therefore, based on the particular *1336 factual circumstances in which Ahler acted and the lack of “clearly established” case law, this Court concludes that Ahler is entitled to qualified immunity on Pace’s § 1983 claim.

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.

DeHart v. Lehman

9 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1998

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity; and D) Plaintiff was not denied equal protection of the law. 3 Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right

Gennusa v. Shoar

879 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 2012

Defendants further assert that, even if the recording violated plaintiffs’ rights, qualified immunity applies because those rights were not clearly established. … Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

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.

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.

Potter v. Board of Regents

Nebraska Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2014

. § 20-148 (Reissue 2012) and that the managers are protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. … As to Bockstadter and Losee, the court found that the constitu- tional right allegedly violated had not been clearly established and that thus, the claim was barred by qualified immunity.

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

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.

John Paff v. George Kaltenbach

204 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2000

Fields, 178 F.3d 170, 174 (3d Cir. 1999). 17 A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the … a right to leaflet peacefully where they were. 59 When an officer violates clearly established law and the facts reasonably known by the officer indisputably show that the officer's conduct was illegal, qualified immunity

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.”

kenney v. davidson

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Thus they are not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss.

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

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.

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.

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense 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

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.

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.

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