Case law

Maney v. Fealy

69 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 17, 2014

In determining whether a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide “whether a constitutional violation occurred and ... whether the right violated was clearly established.” … Instead, the Fourth Circuit rested its finding for the officer on the basis, of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that the officer did not violate clearly established law. Id. at 359-60 .

Donahoe v. Arpaio

869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2012

. § 1983 , 11 qualified immunity protects a government official from suit where that official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of free speech rights [is] violative” of clearly established law).

Kim Shultz v. Bryan Buchanan

829 F.3d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

To defeat qualified immunity, the evidence must support a finding that Buchanan violated a clearly established constitutional right. … The entry thus did not violate Shultz’s clearly established rights.

Scheuerman v. City of Huntsville, Al

499 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 23, 2007

Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263 , 1268 *1215 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ). 84 In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, district courts are to consider only the “clearly established law and … The law can be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose.”

Rankin v. Colman

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2056 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 29, 1985

Characteristically the Court has defined *239 these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. … Qualified immunity is also an affirmative defense and is not raised by the complaint here.

Bittakis v. City of El Paso

480 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2007

When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … Qualified immunity for the officers turns on whether “a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the ... officers possessed.

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

McCray v. Lee

963 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

They argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment; that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that 3 no such Eighth Amendment rights had been clearly established; … Qualified immunity shields 2 officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would

Kies Ex Rel. Kies v. City of Lima

612 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Ricker and Green assert qualified immunity in response to Kies’ § 1983 claims. … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Shevlin v. Cheatham

211 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 7, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Foster v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services

736 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … We conclude that placing Essie Foster on the disqualification list in these circumstances was not a deprivation of the Fosters' clearly established due process rights and that Hansen and Watkins are thus entitled to qualified

Daniels v. Delaware

120 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 29, 2000

In interpreting the Anderson approach to the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has *419 rejected a strict reading of Anderson which would require … However, the Hovater case is instructive on more than the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

DeJesus v. Delaware

210 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 28, 2016

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To establish a case that overcomes qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts “showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh

205 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2000

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the rights allegedly violated were “clearly established.” See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. … Thus, LSO’s right was “clearly established.” 3.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

528 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

and  7 the qualified immunity defense. … what is clearly established law.

Bala v. Stenehjem

671 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 30, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits unless “ ‘their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Anderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” 2 Howard v.

Causey v. Parish of Tangipahoa

167 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 12, 2001

As stated above, the question of whether a public official is covered by qualified immunity entails a two step inquiry. First, the court must find that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … These claims are clearly insufficient to overcome Sergeant Price’s defense of qualified immunity and the Court shall deal with the allegations in summary fashion.

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Judge Nelson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2021

Prince George’s County, Md., 309 F.3d 224, 229 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from having to litigate, as contrasted with an immunity from liability … Traditional appellate review of a qualified immunity ruling cannot achieve the intended goal of an immunity ruling: “the right not to be subject to the burden of trial.”

Bennie F. Calhoun v. New York State Division of Parole Officers: J. McQuire Ted Clark R. White and G. Stern

999 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity The doetrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Since in these circumstances the constitutional right now claimed by Calhoun was not clearly established in the spring of 1985, defendants White and Stern were entitled to qualified immunity.