Case law

Lewis v. McCracken

782 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn next to the issue of qualified immunity protections, if any, available to Chief McCracken. … Qualified immunity shields McCracken from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken by him in the course of his performance of his discretionary functions, unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory

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.

Ramirez v. State of New York

143 A.D.3d 880 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 19, 2016

Following a nonjury trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claims based upon, among other things, the doctrine of qualified immunity. We affirm. … To establish its entitlement to qualified immunity, the governmental body must demonstrate “that the relevant discretionary determination by the governmental body was the result of a deliberative decision-making process”

Ramos v. Carbajal

508 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (i) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … , the Court believes that Rodriguez would still be entitled to qualified immunity, because, in the context of this case, the proper application of clearly established law to the facts is unclear.

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.

Torossian v. Hayo

45 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1999

Bivens Actions and Qualified Immunity for Public Officials In Bivens v. … The Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity shields them from any civil liability to plaintiffs because the actions of the defendants, as alleged, did not constitute violations of “clearly established” rights under

Salman v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 5, 2000

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only “only insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A Plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding whether a right is clearly established. Id.

Wernecke v. Garcia

452 F. App'x 479 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 7, 2011

Qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … that right was clearly established.

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

D'Aguanno v. Gallagher

50 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 1995

Therefore, to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs must establish that defendants’ conduct violated “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, citing precedent which establishes a general right will not do.

Graniczny v. City of El Paso, Tex.

809 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from suit under § 1983 to government officials provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … Thus, this analysis encompasses the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis previously mentioned: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

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.

Costello v. City of Burlington

708 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 26, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, a rule disallowing application of Burlington’s City Ordinance to the facts of this case would not be “clearly established,” and Sergeant Lewis would be entitled to qualified immunity even assuming a constitutional violation

Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

379 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2004

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, Mitchell [was] immune unless his actions violated clearly established law.”).

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we cannot say that defendants should have known they were violating a clearly established right.

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division

58 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Federal courts recognize a qualified immunity for public officials, which is analogous although not identical to our official immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Johnson v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS

370 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 27, 2005

To establish qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, Defendant Warnecke must show that she is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint. Bradford v. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test requires the Court to consider whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Cavanaugh v. Doherty

243 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1998

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As such, accepting plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss (see, McEvoy v Spencer, supra, at 95), we conclude that defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity.