Case law

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.”

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al.

2018 DNH 096 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 15, 2018

“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct 21 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity. In Foster v.

Olzinski v. MacIona

714 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 7, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the claims for money damages because they “could not have reasonably known that their conduct violated any well established … Once the issue of qualified immunity is properly injected into a case by a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the allegedly “clearly established” constitutional right

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.

Gilmore-Bey v. Coughlin

929 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 1996

The defendants clearly are entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken prior to the effective date of the statute, November 16, 1993. As found in Woods v. … Therefore, the law cannot be said to have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct underlying this action, and the defendants are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

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.

Jackson v. Curry Cnty.

343 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 1, 2018

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Qualified Immunity As noted above, Curry County Defendants move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

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

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.

D.Z. Ex Rel. Thompson v. Buell

796 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Neither party disputes that D.Z.’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established at the time of the incident.

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.