Case law

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.

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.

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.

Potter v. City of Hanceville (In Re Potter)

354 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Nov 6, 2006

A plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by a showing that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … While there may have been a violation of a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff, the defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment as to qualified immunity if this right were not clearly established

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

Perez v. Duran

962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013

However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.

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

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.

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.

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).

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

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.”

Akers v. Caperton

797 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 30, 1992

Qualified Immunity The Defendants Gaston Caperton, Kenneth Dunn and Art Gleason assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity since they were acting pursuant to statutory authority and they further allege that their conduct did not violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Kevin Holcomb v. Mark Lykens, Sean Smith, Joanne Pereria and John Gorczyk

337 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

“In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not … In order to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense, then, Holcomb must allege a deprivation of an actual constitutional right clearly established at the time of the events in issue.

Masciotta v. Clarkstown Central School District

136 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields & “government official ] from liability for civil damages insofar as [his or her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because qualified immunity.

Mucker v. Brown

462 S.W.3d 719 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 15, 2015

The teacher was not entitled to qualified official immunity. Id. … Mucker is not entitled to qualified official immunity.

Rivas v. City of Passaic

365 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2004

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … We note that Garcia and Rodriguez do not argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as of November 1998.