Case law

Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231

138 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 6, 2015

’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the. official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 62 Accordingly, the. qualified immunity defense must be resolved “at the … Defendants are not .entitled to qualified immunity on Gilhaus’ due process property interest claim because the facts as alleged demonstrate that Defendants violated Gilhaus’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Habiger v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 23, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official *717 from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that his or her conduct violates that particular right because the contours of the right are sufficiently clear.

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Dudley v. Angel

209 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. … The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Hlad Ex Rel. Shipley v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

305 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if the qualified immunity doctrine applies to Defendant Carter, he has not established that he is entitled to application of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

Garson v. Hendlin

141 A.D.2d 55 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 1988

While it is true that the cloak of a qualified immunity may also serve to protect commentary of dubious probative worth, the policy interests furthered by recognition of the privilege serve as a counterweight to any incidental … The plaintiff has not established otherwise.

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

796 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Bosarge must plead that the agents violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pearson v. … The agents are entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under Rehberg.

Hunt v. Massi

5 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2014

Overview of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which … The Right was Clearly Established.

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II 33 "[P]ublic officials . . . are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Lee v. Arapahoe County

197 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 1999

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. … The final step in reviewing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. Gibbs is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of Mr. Lee’s termination. Siegert v.

Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones’s request for qualified immunity. All of the defendants appeal. Mr. … Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Bennett v. Coffman

178 W. Va. 500 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1987

I It has long been established that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an assessment of damages against him in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that … The appellees in this case are therefore immune from damages unless they acted contrary to clearly established law as it existed at the time they entered Mr.