Case law

Brown v. Gammage

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Based on this finding, the Court need not determine whether an implicated right was clearly established at the time.

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

Tucker v. Atwater

815 S.E.2d 34 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … We don't reach that question here because the absence of clearly established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity. But there's no reason why the next such case should face the same problem.

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.

Altman v. City of High Point

330 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2003

immunity analysis and determine whether the right was clearly established. … It is certainly true that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates clearly established federal law.

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;

Jenkins v. Cnty. of Washington

126 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 2015

Defendants to believe that their acts did not violate any such clearly established rights. … a single case in this Circuit that rendered the rights in question clearly established.

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

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services

346 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

The Third Circuit has discussed qualified immunity in the following manner and terms: A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “[t]he contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable … In determining whether qualified immunity is applicable, the Court must first determine for the purposes of the motion if, in fact, a constitutional right was violated, and second, if that right was “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.”

Zahra v. Town of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 (“The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a ‘clearly established right’ to the permits at issue.”); see also Amsden

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.

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

Santana v. Calderon

188 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.