Case law

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.

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.

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

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.

Kipps v. Caillier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps's clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.

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.

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.

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.”

Fogel v. Collins

531 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Police officers performing discretionary functions within the scope of their employment have qualified immunity from civil suit as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … A two-step analysis guides our qualified immunity inquiry.

Leopardi v. Township of Maple Shade

363 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2003

Potentially liable parties, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity claims involve a two-step analysis.

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.

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Siefert v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

354 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 15, 2018

"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 of which a reasonable person … Williams-Ash , this Court cannot conclude that County Defendants have violated a clearly established procedural due process right. The County Defendants therefore are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. c.

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Peggy Boardman, Jeffrey P. Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bell

91 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1996

As the district court noted, qualified immunity was therefore available as a complete defense. … The district court properly applied the defense of qualified immunity here.

Maureen Tierney, for Herself and as Mother of Philip T. Newton, Patrick J. Newton v. Joel R. Davidson Thomas E. Williams, State of Vermont

133 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law

Clara Cheeks v. Mark Jakob

80 F.4th 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2023

of clearly established law.” … As the Supreme Court has often reminded us, defeating qualified immunity requires a constitutional rule that was “clearly established,” not just “suggested by . . . precedent.” City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S.