Case law

Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity 11 Under 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 … Was Owensby's Fourteenth Amendment Right to Adequate Medical Care Clearly Established?

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Tamez v. City of San Marcos

118 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendant must both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Pierce v. Gilchrist

359 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2004

Clearly Established Law When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, after identifying the constitutional right allegedly violated, courts must determine whether the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of … In response to defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court analyzed whether the law prohibiting such conduct was clearly established as of January 8, 1986, the day of the alleged arrest. Id. at 581.

Torres v. Grunkmeyer

601 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Feb 1, 1985

The Court would further note that if such actions were entitled to legislative immunity, legislators and their staffs would be free to violate clearly established rights and privileges with impunity, something the Speech … Plaintiff seeks a directed verdict on the qualified immunity question.

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.

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. 8 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."

Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.

Stapleton v. Lozano

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2025

a violation of clearly-established law.” … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Cope v.

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Schroeder v. Kaplan

60 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where the right which the officials have allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred such that a reasonable … the district court properly granted defendants qualified immunity on this claim.

Ruegsegger v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF CTY. COM'RS

197 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claims One, Two, Three and Four because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20 … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 15, 2006

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court in the state in which the case arose provide the case law capable of clearly establishing the boundaries of rights in the qualified immunity … Once these elements have been satisfactorily demonstrated, “there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense” because “the use of force ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ is clearly established to be a violation

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

832 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … On the compelled speech claim, the district court granted summary judgment to Santos and Cavazos under step two of the qualified immunity inquiry, that is, no clearly established right was violated.

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

Baddour, Inc. And Bmc Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. United States of America, Michael E. Posey

802 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1986

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (emphasis added). … In this case and on these facts the plaintiff clearly has not done so. 3 Were Baddour’s failure to overcome Posey’s qualified immunity defense not enough, the damages suit against Posey could have been dismissed for failure

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13