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

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

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.

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[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 … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

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.

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established 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.

Ronnie Lee McKnight v. John Rees, Daryll Richardson and John Walker

88 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

After reviewing the two lines of cases discussed supra, the Williams court held that “[t]he instant case clearly falls within the class of cases in which qualified immunity may be raised by a private defendant.” … The court believed that the fact that the defendant was “performing duties that would otherwise have to be performed by a public official who would clearly have qualified immunity” weighed in favor of granting qualified immunity

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.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources

840 N.W.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 6, 2013

Iowa Code chapter 483A establishes a framework for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses in Iowa. … In Hoeven, the Eighth Circuit implied certain property rights established under state law may be fundamental.

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

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children & Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

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.