Case law

Patel v. Hall

849 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to these claims, so the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish both that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the … We must not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality” because “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Id.

Jones v. Perry County Fiscal Court

185 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Judge Alexander “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Record No. 40-1, p. 13] Further, he contends that Jones’ right to associate with his uncle is not clearly established.

Wilson v. Lawrence County

260 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

Qualified Immunity 13 "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987). 14 In determining if appellants are entitled to qualified immunity we must ask whether Wilson states a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established

Defoor v. Evesque

694 So. 2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 2, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defoor also contends that Evesque was not entitled to immunity while performing the function of inspecting and cleaning the test site. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Bolbol v. City of Daly City

754 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2010

right was clearly established. 1. … to qualified immunity.

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

of clearly established law.” … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

Melancon v. Ascension Parish

823 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 1993

If a constitutional violation is established, the Court must then determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. 5 The second prong of this test is clearly satisfied. … was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. 19 Therefore, the defendants would be prohibited from relying on the defense of qualified immunity.

ESTATE OF CASSARA BY CASSARA v. State of Ill.

853 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1994

In order to penetrate defendants’ shield of qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary functions, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established … established and the state officials’ actions clearly illegal.

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

Morales v. Toledo

638 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity 8 This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of Qualified Immunity bars Plaintiffs claims against Colon. 9 Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that “allows public officials to perform discretionary … taken violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Randi Hyatt v. Callahan County

843 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … “A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Thames v. City of Westland

310 F. Supp. 3d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant officers argue qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983. … 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

Brooks v. Whiteford

384 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 21, 2019

The Supreme Court has recently explained that when a court is deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, "the clearly established right must be defined with specificity," that the court should not "define … Thus, the fact that the right to be from excessive force, as a general principle, has long been clearly established is not dispositive of whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lilienthal v. City of Suffolk

275 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 4, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Outlaw has raised the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a section 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Roucchio v. Coughlin

29 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In order to establish qualified immunity, a defendant government official must demonstrate that his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was

Iacobucci v. Town of Pembroke

193 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 4, 1999

"Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … Hence, Boulter was not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Franklin Building Corp. v. City of Ocean City

946 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1996

qualified immunity. … “clearly established”_ In instances of violations which are not clearly established, a showing of improper motive will not defeat a qualified immunity claim. Grant, 98 F.3d at 125 n. 6. This is one such case.

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.