Case law

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, "summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established." Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. "[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it." Hilliard v.

Casines v. Murchek

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines’s right to a pre-termi-nation hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

TonyaMarie Adams v. Nathan Trimble

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2023

Trimble appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As such, the evidence does not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity is appropriate here.

Kiles v. City of North Las Vegas

276 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 1, 2008

MEMORANDUM ** Robinson Reed appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this Section 1983 excessive force suit. We affirm. … The second step in qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Pennington v. Hobson

719 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 1989

Only those public officials who can show that their conduct was not violative of any of the plaintiffs clearly established rights are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … In the qualified immunity analysis, the issue was whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Lucas v. Henrico County School Board

822 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal citations omitted).

K. J. v. Jackson

127 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 2025

Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). … We hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in Goss.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

166 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … /Portland, 988 F.2d at 872 . 14 Although the counter-claimants have met the burden of showing the right at issue was clearly established, Rigby nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if she can show that a reasonable

La Belle v. County of St. Lawrence

85 A.D.2d 759 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1981

In addition, the case of Doe v County of Suffolk ( 494 F Supp 179, 182 ) states that the immunity under section 419 of the Social Services *761 Law is a qualified good faith immunity only. … Furthermore, it should be noted that contrary to defendants’ assertion, since the immunities are at best qualified immunities, plaintiffs did not have the burden to plead bad faith (Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635 ).

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, Iii, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia

471 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the application of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

Hill v. Washington State Department of Corrections

628 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2009

Second, Plaintiffs contend that no individual Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person would know that enforcing the DOC Policy violates a clearly established constitutional right. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the pre-conviction eligibility requirement

Belcher v. Oliver

898 F.2d 32 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 1990

We disagree and hold defendants entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because they committed no violation of clearly established constitutional law. In so holding, we reverse the judgment of the district court. … The individual officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity on the above claims.

Ronkin v. Vihn

71 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2014

Qualified immunity shields 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 … Put succinctly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” Saucier v.

Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo

113 F.4th 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

As the Supreme Court stated in Mitchell: The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established … And, of course, there’s a class of Bivens cases where raising a qualified immunity defense would be frivolous. Qualified immunity is only available when the constitutional law is not “clearly established.” See Wilk v.

Demaree v. Pederson

887 F.3d 870 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

"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 rights of which a reasonable person … (ii) Whether the constitutional right was clearly established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry-whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what

Bell v. Neukirch

376 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 21, 2019

When a party is asserting qualified immunity, "[t]he party asserting immunity always has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts, and at the summary judgment stage, the nonmoving party is given the benefit of … Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officer's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Winslow v.

Ward v. Noonan

147 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit for damages where their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Kameron Evans v. John Dodd

114 F.4th 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified immunity will shield the Officers “from legal liability unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the … “Clearly established” means that “[t]he precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Brown v. City of St.