Case law

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).

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).’”

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.

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers

629 F. App'x 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2015

It is well established, however, that 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 … Clearly Established Rights The second step of our qualified immunity analysis asks whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. at 306 .

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.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

Our review at this juncture is limited, however, to "circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law." Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992). … III 11 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Schwartz v. Gwinnett County

924 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 15, 2013

A Qualified immunity of the 911 Defendants and Brown Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities, unless their conduct violates “clearly established … state actor as violating a clearly established constitutional right. 13 To the extent the, 911 Defendants and Brown have been sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity for the Section 1983

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … We reinstate our prior decision in its entirety and supplement, by this opinion, our previous discussion of qualified immunity. SO ORDERED. .

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Knight v. Pugh

801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

802 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

To avoid summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must first show “a violation of a constitutional right” and that the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’ … Summary judgment is, thus, precluded on the basis of qualified immunity for Teaven so long as the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Komlosi v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

64 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 7, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability if their conduct either “ ‘did not violate “clearly established rights” of which a reasonable person would have known, or ... it was

Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

379 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2004

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, Mitchell [was] immune unless his actions violated clearly established law.”).

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.

Drakeford v. County of Orange

213 F. App'x 542 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity analysis consists of two questions. … Thus an officer whose actions in fact violate clearly established law may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those actions are reasonable in light of the information the officer had at the time of the arrest

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Ron Rhodes

973 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

The district court also rejected Hoggard’s § 1983 due-process and First-Amendment damages claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right.4 … “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”