Case 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.

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.

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.

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”

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

Kentucky v. Young

51 F. App'x 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2002

A state actor who is sued in his or her individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Consequently, we hold that Detective Burns is not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Sybil Hernandez v. Brett Jarman

340 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

In this case, if Hernandez's allegations fail to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Jarman and Tarrell will be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. See Saucier v. … Accordingly, Jarman is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct because the facts as alleged by Hernandez fail to state a violation of Six Feathers's clearly established constitutional rights.

Terry Summers v. Simon Leis, Sheriff

368 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 2004

qualified immunity.” … of qualified immunity.

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.

District Council 20, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. District of Columbia

150 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2001

For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is “clearly established” if “the contours of that right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … immunity as to these claims which have not been clearly established in this or any other circuit.

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that "[t]he Supreme Court's qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … These cases establish no law clearly and fail to overcome defendants' qualified immunity. 70 As I stated earlier, see supra, until the Supreme Court's decision in Brower, the intentional, successful use of physical force-

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.

Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery

428 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 28, 2006

Pursuant to 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 established … Qualified immunity bestows upon government officials a well-established “right” to avoid the burdens, costs and time of trial when the government official does not violate clearly-established constitutional norms.

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

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. 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.”

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Cline v. Union County, Iowa

182 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Oct 30, 2001

elements essential to his claims, Defendants are immune from liability under Iowa Code § 760.4 (3) (2001), Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, and Cline has not established his section 1983 … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth

424 Mass. 176 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 3, 1997

Government officials are normally protected only by a qualified immunity, and those officials seeking an absolute exemption from personal liability must show that public policy requires an immunity of that scope. … In Chicopee Lions Club, supra at 251, we established that the scope of prosecutorial immunity under G. L. c. 12 is “at least as broad as under § 1983.” See Rodriques v.