Case law

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly *479 established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Lisa Demaree v. John Krause

880 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

“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 … established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what happened here violated the Demaree family’s Fourth

Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

806 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

immunity. 10 “[Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a … We therefore must determine whether Faul is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not violate clearly established law.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

74 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff … at all' before reaching the possibly unnecessary question of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation of a "clearly established' right."). 5  To be clearly established, the

Stephen Buckley v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons

20 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

a particular right was not “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s acts because it was and is not “established” at all. … Thus there cannot be absolute immunity. But qualified immunity is available unless the acts violated “clearly established” constitutional norms. Harlow, 467 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ; Anderson v.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX

274 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2001

, when based on an issue of (2) was clearly established at the time of the law.” … She under the same test federal courts employ for has not shown Gavito violated any constitu- qualified immunity determinations under tional right, much less one clearly established

Cierra Dunn v. John Does

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Unless he had arguable probable cause to seize the phones, he violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures of their property and is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith based on qualified immunity.

Chew v. Gates

744 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), grants qualified immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The question of whether a government official has qualified immunity for an action turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

Kies Ex Rel. Kies v. City of Lima

612 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Ricker and Green assert qualified immunity in response to Kies’ § 1983 claims. … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

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.

Marin Piazza v. Aponte Roque

668 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1987

Defendants claim qualified immunity from damages on the theory that they did not violate clearly established law. … We therefore hold that defendants’ conduct violated plaintiffs’ clearly established due process rights, and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established

David Ayers v. City of Cleveland

773 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2014

In the qualified-immunity context, an example of a purely legal issue is the determination of “what law was clearly established” at the time of the officials’ conduct. Ortiz, 131 S. Ct. at 891 (quoting Johnson v. … The Sykes court found dispositive the fact that the Rule 50(a) motion never mentioned “qualified immunity” or other terms associated with that defense (e.g., “clearly established law” or “objectively unreasonable actions”

Leonhardt v. Akron

2019 Ohio 5223 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. … We therefore conclude the trial court erred in finding Officers Sams and Smith were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶37} Dr.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .

Berman Enterprises, Inc. v. Jorling

3 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 1993

When Jorling and Marsh acted, the law governing their conduct was not “clearly established”; therefore, both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Marsh is more clearly entitled to qualified immunity than Jorling, for his actions followed a more clearly defined statutory path.

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2005

As the doctrine exists today, qualified immunity shields state officials from personal suits for acts in their official capacity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … The concept of conduct objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law is difficult to grasp.