Case law

Gulledge v. Smart

691 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 29, 1988

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court must focus on the particular facts involved in the alleged deprivation and whether the law at the time of the alleged deprivation was “clearly established … to qualified immunity as to that claim.

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Becerra v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City

272 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 25, 2003

immunity’ Defendant Mots argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated no clearly established right of Plaintiffs. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Ben Collins v. John Nagle

892 F.2d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1989

Likewise, we find that the totality of facts and circumstances provided Nagle, Martin, Riddle and Brown with sufficient collective knowledge to establish probable cause to believe that M. … Dismissal was proper because it is established beyond a doubt that the appellants cannot prove any set of facts consistent with the allegations that would entitle them to relief. Conley v.

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Morales v. Busbee

972 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1997

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has recently made clear that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

332 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Muehler and Brill argue' that they should be shielded from liability to Mena under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2 “Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Grace Ray v. E. J. Foltz

370 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2004

II The Qualified Immunity Defense When government officials act in a way that knowingly violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, they are … We call this defense “qualified immunity” because the official is immune from a damage lawsuit, qualified upon his ability to show that he did not knowingly violate the plaintiff*s clearly established constitutional right

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.

Sevier v. City of Lawrence

853 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 27, 1994

As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional rights. City of Lakewood v. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

448 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2006

He asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation and, in the alternative, no violation of clearly settled law. … If, on the other hand, a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. . . .

Hilliard v. City And County Of Denver

930 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

Sec. 25-1-310 (1989), had given rise to this constitutional violation. 4 The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the law controlling their actions was not clearly established, and that they therefore had qualified immunity … Such broad, nonspecific allegations are insufficient to defeat the defendants' claim to qualified immunity.

Chennault v. Mitchell

923 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … If the facts alleged do not establish that the official violated a constitutional right, then “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity” and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Moray v. City of Yonkers

924 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in eases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly … Even when the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established, qualified immunity may still bar a plaintiffs suit if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate the rights

Wilkins v. Jakeway

44 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified immunity protects from liability for civil damages those officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To avoid the bar of qualified immunity a plaintiff must show that his claimed right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would have understood that his conduct violated

Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.

10 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 17, 1998

or qualified immunity. … Furthermore, in assessing qualified immunity in this case, the court notes that the “[l]aw is clearly established by holdings, not by inferences from language in opinions.” Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1400 .