Case law

Farnworth v. Femling

125 Idaho 283 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1994

State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Pace v. Capobianco

283 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the individual defendants are due immunity. See generally Saucier v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials, in their individual capacities, from suit unless the law preexisting the defendant official’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to such a high degree that every

Daniel Scott v. Mary Benson

742 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask “(1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [Scott], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and “(2) whether … that constitutional right was clearly established as of [the time of the relevant conduct], such that a reasonable official would have known that [her] actions were unlawful.”

Eastwood v. Department of Corrections of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff’s clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue “violatefd] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Carter v. Butts County

110 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 2, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In wrongful arrest cases, the Eleventh Circuit has “defined the ‘clearly-established’ prong as an ‘arguable probable cause’ inquiry.” Moran v.

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Susan Vaughn v. Greene County, AR

438 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2006

Individual Liability of Sheriff Langston “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery

428 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 28, 2006

Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity bestows upon government officials a well-established “right” to avoid the burdens, costs and time of trial when the government official does not violate clearly-established constitutional norms.

Jones v. State

170 Wash. 2d 338 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

Whether Wene and Jeppesen are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983 for violating Jones’ right to due process ¶17 When the defendant moves for summary judgment in a § 1983 suit and raises a qualified … Qualified immunity ¶27 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly

Williams v. Lopes

64 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 1999

Assuming this case involves clearly established rights, the entitlement to qualified immunity generally turns on the particular facts of a case. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d *42 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987). … The evidence before the Court clearly establishes that plaintiff cannot recall the events with any accuracy.

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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.”

Sabo v. City of Mentor

657 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 2011

Tkach appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … ) the issue appealed concerned whether a given set of facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Fleming v. State University of New York

502 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2007

clearly established legal rules then in effect.” … complains violated clearly established law.”

Ferris v. Borough of Baldwin

247 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2017

The Court also concludes that Scott and Lederman are entitled to qualified .immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged … Yerke, 604 Fed.Appx. 149, 152 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying Werkheiser to discuss qualified immunity and explaining that “the law [regarding ‘elected officials’ speech’] was not clearly established”).

Vose v. Kliment

506 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2007

Kliment and Rouse moved to dismiss the case, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity against Vose’s claims because the applicable law on the rights of government employees to speak out was not clearly established … Secondly, they claim that the rights Vose alleges were violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant events. To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we look to two issues.

White v. City of Lagrange

952 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … White has failed to point to particularized case law showing that the right was clearly established.

Novoselsky v. Brown

822 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2016

Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Claim We turn next to Brown’s qualified immunity defense to Novoselsky’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. … Qualified immunity protects government agents from liability for their actions so long as they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

332 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Muehler and Brill argue' that they should be shielded from liability to Mena under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2 “Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens