Case law

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.

Werner v. Wall

836 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

Werner’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims for damages against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that AD 02-10 violated the constitutional … Because clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants in this case that the procedures set forth in AD 02-10 were unlawful, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Harbert International v. James

157 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

clearly established law. … violate clearly established law, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects him.

McAllister v. Price

615 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2010

No. 10-1213 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … established Fourth Amendment rights and thus deprives the defendant of qualified immunity.

Michael Sheets v. Ozean Moore

97 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1996

The court also refused to grant qualified immunity, concluding that at the time Moore rejected plaintiffs mail, plaintiffs right to receive such mail was clearly established. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents

594 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2008

This Court held in its August 4, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 2986389 , that there is no question of law as to whether the following rights were clearly established: (1) the right not to be terminated from employment at a public uni-versify … established law.

Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

707 N.W.2d 669 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

Rather, the specific conduct challenged was the ministerial decision of whether to instruct the student to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged as clearly dictated by an established protocol. Id. at 656-57 . … Anderson, the Eighth Circuit stated that, in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were disputed.

Garcia-Rodriguez v. Gomm

169 F. Supp. 3d 1221 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the. time of the challenged conduct.” … Pursuant to Quinn , 780 at 1004, the court determines that this issue is most efficiently resolved by first analyzing the “clearly established” prong of the SLC Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

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

Foulks v. Cole County, Missouri

991 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

The defendants have failed to show that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Thus, we review Foulks' claim under the clearly established constitutional standard set forth in Estelle

Benavidez v. Howard

931 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In this motion, Howard asked the state court to prohibit Plaintiffs and others “from engaging in conduct directed at 5 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that the right was “clearly … Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 744 (2011) (“Because [the defendant] did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.”)

Lauren Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

967 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2020

whether the right was clearly established or not. … On the second prong of qualified immunity, I agree with the majority that to determine whether a law is clearly established, we need not find a case “directly on point.” (Maj.

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Al-Ra'id v. Ingle

69 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law. … Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not violative of clearly established law.

Rodriguez v. Village of Ossining

918 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2013

Thus, qualified immunity provides protection to police officers faced with an excessive force claim unless the officers (1) “violated a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … a qualified immunity defense.' ” Caban v.

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners

80 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 1, 1996

In their summary judgment motions, defendants asserted their defense of qualified immunity. … right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama

67 F.4th 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2023

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … “Second, the plaintiff must show that the violation was clearly established.” Id. (emphasis and quotation marks omitted).

Tickle v. Ballay

259 So. 3d 435 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2018

In this regard, when "a prosecutor 'functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court' he is entitled only to qualified immunity." … As such, they clearly fall within the realm of prosecutorial immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Mr.

Cook v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CTY. OF WYANDOTTE

966 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 29, 1997

The Court also finds that Officer Drake is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity would shield Officer Drake from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that plaintiffs arrest was lawful in light of clearly established. law and information which Officer Drake possessed

Mejia v. City of New York

119 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The basic test for determining whether a public official is entitled to assert qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … : qualified immunity shields public 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 known