Case law

Vista Community Services v. Dean

107 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1997

We review de novo a district court's ruling that a government official's conduct violated clearly established law such that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson v. … A government official may immediately appeal the denial of qualified immunity when the issue appealed concerns whether or not certain facts show a violation of "clearly established law." Mitchell v.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Pennycuff v. McNutt

95 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the plaintiff has the heavy burden of establishing: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly

Ellison v. Hobbs

334 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2018

"In evaluating a government actor's entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein 'the official's actions must be evaluated against "clearly established law," … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct.

Green v. Bauvi

46 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Assuming that, in whatever circumstances are at issue, the inmate’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time was clearly established at the time of his confinement, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it

Bailey v. Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County

956 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, Bailey was required to show that the defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Mitchell v. … The district court reasoned that the law became “clearly established” on that date; thus, Caldwell and Hayes were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York

124 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2000

clearly established constitutional rights. … At the very least, McManus is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. McManus was informed of an outstanding warrant and acted thereupon.

Heather Burton v. Patricia Richmond

276 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The Defendants have argued that qualified immunity bars the entirety of this lawsuit; specifically, contending at the time of the placement in 1985, the law was not clearly established that state caseworkers had a duty to … The Defendants ask this Court to reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and dismiss this action.

Johnson v. County of Los Angeles

340 F.3d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2001). 1 I In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-step evaluation of qualified immunity. … His use of force was objectively reasonable and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Canter v. County of Otsego

14 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

As the magistrate judge pointed out in his discussion of qualified immunity, the State Police defendants expressly admitted that the constitutional rights they are accused of violating were clearly established at the time … immunity[,] typically, the issue of whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, … As noted above, we have observed that at least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions resulting in the violation of a detainee’s clearly established

Kitchen Ex Rel. the Estate of Kitchen v. Dallas County

759 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2014

earliest possible stage in litigation.’” 8 The two-part inquiry into qualified immunity is first “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,” and second “whether the right was clearly established … As a general matter, moreover, this rule constituted clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity in this case.

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).’”

Dean v. Munch

4 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

To be considered “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … A claim of immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act is not an immunity from suit, as qualified and absolute immunity are.

William Bell-Bey v. Beverly Williams

87 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

The Donta court held, “If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.” Id. (citation omitted).

Barnhill v. Board of Regents of UW System

158 Wis. 2d 278 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 27, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF SHARP AND LEE The relevant question before us is the objective question whether a reasonable official could have believed that discharging Barnhill was lawful, in light of clearly established law and … [defendants] liable for compensatory damages, and even though plaintiffs rights were sufficiently well established to defeat defendant's claim of qualified immunity.

Ward v. Murphy

330 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

More specifically, qualified immunity provides “substantial protection for caseworkers,” provided “it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts” would not violate clearly established rights. … Even if the court were to assume a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific rights alleged by the plaintiff are not clearly established. See, e.g., Tenenbaum v.