Case law

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity 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

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.

Roger Trent v. Steven Wade

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 9, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity “insulate[s]” state officials from liability to the extent that the officials’ actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Kathleene Schattilly v. Thomas Daugharty

656 F. App'x 123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

she still cannot show that defendants violated clearly established rights. … Because Schattilly has not met her burden of showing that the asserted rights are clearly established, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Williams, Acevedo, and Daugharty for interviewing Bailey

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. Thus, the Court held in Procunier v. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail,” unless the defendant “claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Pabon v. Wright

459 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

Because this right was not clearly established in this circuit when Pabon was diagnosed with and treated for Hepatitis C, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to all Defendants on qualified-immunity grounds … According to this second inquiry, a qualified-immunity defense will be successful either when the defendants’ actions did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe

Barbera v. Smith

836 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Qualified Immunity Prosecutors are entitled to qualified immunity from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Yet, unless it was clearly established in 1981-82 that the government owed a duty of protection to someone in Barbera’s position, qualified immunity will insulate Schlessinger’s actions.

William Hurt v. Matthew Wise

880 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

of  clearly  established  law.  … Even if, in hindsight, it appears that probable cause  was lacking, qualified immunity is still available if the arrest‐ ing officers “reasonabl[y] … could have believed the arrest to  be  lawful,  in  light  of  clearly 

Jabbar-El v. Sullivan

811 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 30, 1992

Restated this means that a defendant has “qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Id. at 650 . Allegations of malice on the part of the defendant will not defeat the defense.

Baumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind

425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006

. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Huddleston v. Maurry

841 S.W.2d 24 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 2, 1992

To establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a movant must show that: 1. he pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; 2. his position with the government enjoys a quasi-judicial status; 3. he was … In responding to an emergency they still were required to obey the safety standards established in article 6701d. We conclude that the officers have not established, as a matter of law, a basis for qualified immunity.

Allen v. Sakai

40 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Krug, for his part, challenges the district court’s conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Anderson v. Recore

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

II “[Pjublic 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 extant … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Doan v. Watson

168 F. Supp. 2d 932 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 10, 2001

Qualified immunity Defendants contend that they should enjoy qualified immunity for their administration of the strip-search procedure, pursuant to § 1983. … Officials acting under qualified immunity are not subjected to suit “unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights then known to a reasonable officer.” Ulichny v. Merton Cmty. Sch.

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

439 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2006

Qualified immunity shields state actors 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.” … are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity when they violate statutory rights that similarly are not clearly established.”); accord Tapley, 211 F.3d at 1216.

Meredith v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

177 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (restricting qualified immunity protection to actions where official conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right), such immunity does not extend to a suit seeking equitable … of a clearly established right, the lexical priority of the inquiries are identical.

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 would … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.