Case law

Leticia Rudolph v. Daniel Babinec

939 F.3d 742 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability if they did not violate a clearly established right “of which a reasonable person” in the same situation would have known. Harlow v. … is clearly established” (emphasis added)).

Masters v. Gilmore

663 F. Supp. 2d 1027 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 5, 2009

The Law of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discre *1042 tionary functions from liability for civil damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Masters cannot satisfy the second prong of qualified immunity analysis and show that the rights were clearly established at the time the violations occurred. Remarkably, Mr.

LeFever v. Ferguson

956 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 9, 2013

Raker’s qualified immunity defense. … clearly established as early as 1964.”

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers

326 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

As governmental officials acting within the scope of their duty, Urbank and Summers can claim qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Brockinton v. City of Sherwood

503 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and

Lee v. Cline

384 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of malice to overcome Cline’s qualified immunity. … Consequently, judicial opinions dealing with the well-established limitations upon public official immunity furnish no authority for judicially creating similar limitations upon the broad statutory immunity granted by the

Harris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 15, 2014

Qualified Immunity: Baker and Simmons “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 … Defendants assert that Baker and Simmons are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Allen v. Kline

507 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 23, 2007

Qualified immunity shields from *1156 liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known … If plaintiffs sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendant.

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

“On review of a denial of qualified immunity, ‘[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law].’ ” Pelletier v. … “[S]pecifie binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Maraziti, 953 F.2d at 525 , quoting Brady v.

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

Husain v. Springer

336 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 2, 2004

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Burke v. Twp. of Cheltenham

742 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2010

Federal “qualified immunity” has been established by case law, Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Hayes v. Terrance Howard

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 23, 2021

Qualified immunity defense is thus “an immunity from suit rather than a mere 4 Alvarez v. … Once qualified immunity is asserted, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established

Geoffrey J. Waldau v. Merit Systems Protection Board

19 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Mar 16, 1994

Such a case exists when a petitioner raises nonfrivolous allegations of controverted jurisdictional facts on which the MSPB’s jurisdiction is clearly established if these facts are proven. See, e.g., Burgess v. … It is clearly not for this court on appeal to consider for the first time the evidence of record to determine whether Waldau qualifies as a confidential employee.

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George Pickett

586 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been “clearly established.”

Peter Wenk v. Edward O'Reilly

783 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

of qualified immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerns not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but whether certain alleged facts reflect a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity “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

Walter v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s 12 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 232. 13 In Saucier v. … Because the law was clearly 7 established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 8 9 D.

Dockery v. Tucker

73 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 24, 1998

As discussed above, Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v. … As discussed above, defendant Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs rights were not clearly established, see Mitchell v.