Case law

Walton v. Ballard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

established federal law.” … Johnson, 647 F.3d 87, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The rule and analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland ‘unquestionably qualifies as “clearly established” federal law under § 2254(d).’”

Charles Bella v. Lee Chamberlain and Curtis Meyers

24 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1994

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The very purpose of qualified immunity is to "weed out” suits that fail to assert the violation of a clearly established constitutional right "without requiring a defendant ... to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation

Hermann v. Cook

240 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants bear the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense, but Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Defendants’ conduct violated a right so clearly established that a rea *630 sonable official would have

Valdez v. United States

58 F. Supp. 3d 795 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 7, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 ). … The Court begins with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

established constitutional rights, *1086 defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity.

Bonnie Lee Hinchman v. Edwin L. Moore Jr. And Robert A. Dombrowski

312 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2002

Immunity The defendants maintain, as alternative defenses, that they are entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Dunn v. Village of Put-In-Bay

291 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2003

was clearly established at the time that the injury occurred. … The Village and Township, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Wilkerson v. Stalder

329 F.3d 431 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 14, 2003

The court must engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. … First, the court must determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Heap v. Carter

112 F. Supp. 3d 402 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available where a govérnment official performing discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory-or constitutional rights of which a- reasonable person would have known.” … and if other appellate federal courts have split on the question of whether an asserted right exists, the right cannot be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

Wershing v. Hinckley Township

36 F. App'x 179 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 2002

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the district court denied. Defendants now raise five issues. … Second, whether Wershing has established that the constitutional right allegedly violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable official in the individual Defendants’ position would have known.

Taylor Ex Rel. Estate of Mason v. Adams

221 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

her qualified immunity. … See, e.g., Layne, 119 S.Ct. at 1695 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity despite their unconstitutional conduct because of the lack of clearly established, preexisting law governing that conduct).

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold

873 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

), from which defendants claim qualified immunity. … Because Yalkut’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Suarez v. Derosier

241 So. 3d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2018

DeRosier submitted affidavits of his employees in support of absolute immunity. Prosecutors may have absolute immunity or qualified immunity depending upon their actions. … The trial court clearly noted absolute immunity was at issue and found that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. However, Defense counsel's failure to provide discovery, claiming immunity applied, prevented Mr.

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.

Jones v. Chandrasuwan

76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

Aspinwall v. Herrin

879 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 27, 1994

Herrin is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim because it was not clearly established in January of 1993 that a Georgia sheriff was bound by a county merit system. … Under the objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that Herrin’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.