Case law

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

clearly established law. … of clearly established law.

Heflin v. Stewart County

958 F.2d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1992

The defendants now argue that the court should have submitted their qualified immunity defense to the jury. That is clearly not the law. We stated in Poe v. … Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 424 (6th Cir.1988), that “[resolution of qualified immunity is purely a question of law.”

Daniel Irish v. Keith McNamara

108 F.4th 715 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 18, 2024

Deputy McNamara moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. … During argument on the motion, the district court observed that this was a “highly unfortunate accident,” but it nevertheless denied qualified immunity, reasoning that it was clearly established that a seizure occurred within

Brayshaw v. Gelber

232 N.J. Super. 99 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1989

We acknowledged that this qualified immunity was subject to N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a as are all Tort Claims Act immunities. … therefore, she was entitled to a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3.

Smith v. Ciesielski

975 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

In particular, the statute provides officials qualified immunity for “[t]he performance of a discretionary function.” Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(7). … As with common law qualified immunity under Section 1983, an official’s conduct does not merit exemption from suit if it “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

Ladd v. Thibault

402 F. App'x 618 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2010

DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 “Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims 17 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is 23 established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate 24 clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively 25 reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action

Eddie O. Buckley, Jr. v. Russell Rogerson, Warden Imcc Paul W. Loeffelholz, M.D.

133 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 1998

DISCUSSION Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from suit unless the conduct complained of violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As we have noted in previous cases, this court has taken a “broad view” of what constitutes clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. at 677.

Michael L. Davis v. John Zirkelbach

149 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Ordinarily, because Lenn is entitled to qualified immunity from a suit based on the legal advice he gave to the police officers, we would ask whether his actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … In Harlow , the Supreme Court explained its scope as follows: *620 If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing

Cugini v. City of New York, Palazzola

941 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 25, 2019

It granted the defendantsʹ motion for summary judgment, however, on the ground that Palazzola was entitled to qualified immunity because his behavior did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … However, because at the time of the plaintiffʹs arrest Palazzolaʹs actions did not violate clearly established constitutional law, the district court correctly concluded that his actions were protected by qualified immunity

DeRosa v. Bell

24 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 31, 1998

A party is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if the court finds that the rights asserted by the plaintiff were not clearly established or: no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light … While the right to due process is clearly established under the fourteenth amendment, the issue of qualified immunity cannot be resolved at such a high level of generality. See Anderson v.

Colston v. Barnhart

130 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 29, 1998

Disputes over the application of the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry are separable from the merits of a controversy because “‘[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant … The semantic switch from discussing the typical qualified-immunity issue of “clearly established law” to a hypothetical (in Behrens) issue of “objective legal reasonableness” creates many of the problems that are now plaguing

Askari Abdullah Muhammad, 017434 v. Louie L. Wainwright, Richard Dugger, Clayton C. Strickland, David Watson, Thomas L. Barton, R.R. Music

839 F.2d 1422 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 28, 1987

Muhammad further argues that because this area of the law was clearly established, defendants should not be permitted to avail themselves of qualified immunity. … Broadly defining “clearly established law” as Muhammad suggests significantly undermines part of the rationale for the qualified immunity defense.

Hollingsworth v. Hill

110 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 4, 1997

Hollingsworth relies are not clearly established. Ms. Hollingsworth argues that Deputy Hill is not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in Hill’s position would have known that entry into Ms. … Objective Reasonableness and Extraordinary Circumstances Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects 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.” … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[The defendant] violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated [the plaintiff] for exercising her free speech rights.”).

Bond v. Nikki

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 6, 2021

court next must decide whether the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Counseling Ctr., 987 F.2d 397, 408-09 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant case law in context of assessing whether law was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes)).

Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee

625 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2010

Even if a constitutional violation based on deliberate indifference was shown, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … But we do not rule out today that Defendant might yet be due qualified immunity as the facts become developed.6 The district court’s order denying summary judgment and qualified immunity to Defendant on the claim for deliberate

Williams v. Mayor & City Council

128 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 7, 1999

The Maryland case law establishes unequivocally that police officers in the course of their public duties are public officials within the contemplation of the qualified immunity law. … We hold that in enacting the immunity provision of Ch. 307 of the Acts of 1979, it clearly was not the legislative intent to diminish or to curtail in any way the qualified immunity otherwise enjoyed by a law enforcement

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

258 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

WMATA’s first argument—that there is no statute, regulation, or policy on point—is clearly unavailing. … rely on “SSOP 46 alone” to establish this standard.

Reynaldo Ramirez v. Jim Wells County, Texas

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 30, 2013

Because there was no false arrest, no constitutional violation occurred, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to reach the part of the qualified immunity analysis that asks whether the law was clearly established. … We have explained the ‘clearly established’ prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be “on notice

Behrens v. Pelletier

516 U.S. 299 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 1996

On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” … allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.