Case law

Cody v. Dane County

242 Wis. 2d 173 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 25, 2001

In this regard, Cody misapprehends the concept of qualified immunity in the § 1983 context. … The determinative legal question regarding qualified immunity is not whether Norwick reasonably believed his actions were lawful, but whether the law regarding Cody's rights was clearly established, such that "a reasonably

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Knott County Board of Education v. Patton

415 S.W.3d 51 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2013

We also conclude that the individual Appellants were engaged in the performance of discretionary duties covered by the qualified official immunity doctrine. … of qualified official immunity.

Vines v. Howard

676 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1987

To be protected by qualified immunity, an official must establish that he acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. … The constitutional right at issue must be clearly established. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Ealum v. Schirard

46 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

At the summary judgment stage, if the record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, clearly demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity is not available. … . § 242 , like “clearly established” requirement in qualified immunity analysis, is not dependent upon “fundamentally similar” prior case law).

Arnold v. McClain

926 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 21, 1991

to good faith or qualified immunity for his actions. 2. … Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law by Defendant or the requisite nexus to his actions.

Moya v. Schollenbarger

465 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

As to the first prong of qualified immunity — whether Defendants violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[],” Harlow v. … First Amendment rights As to the first prong of a qualified immunity analysis, M r. M oya’s allegations clearly implicate First Amendment rights.

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Wright v. Butts

953 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1996

The state defendants contend that, in their individual capacities, they are immune from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Jose Padilla v. John Yoo

678 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2012

YOO tiffs’ RFRA claims on the basis of qualified immunity, hold- ing that RFRA’s application “to the military detention setting” was not clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tions. Id. at 560. … YOO Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because it was not clearly established in 2001-03 that the treatment to which Padilla says he was subjected amounted to torture.

Exford v. City of Montgomery

887 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 24, 2012

United States, 457 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (“In the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for *1222 qualified immunity purposes … the relevant law clearly enough to defeat qualified immunity.

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.

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Onofre T. Serrano v. S.W. Francis

345 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2003

Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, we now move to our analysis of qualified immunity. 3.

Ross v. State of Alabama

15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 22, 1998

Pleading with specificity is particularly important where, as here, a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, and the court must decide whether the conduct complained of violates a “clearly established” constitutional … As Defendants correctly note, the Supreme Court has stated that, “[ujnless the plaintiff's allegation states a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Hart v. Artus

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 2021

Next, Plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply to any of the defendants, since the constitutional rights which Plaintiffs allege were violated were all clearly established, such that a reasonable defendant … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Zahra v. Town of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 (“The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a ‘clearly established right’ to the permits at issue.”); see also Amsden

Dear v. City of Irving

902 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 16, 1995

“This immunity, variously known as governmental, official, quasi-judicial or qualified immunity, evolved out of a public policy that encourages public officers to carry out their duties without fear of personal liability. … Under federal law, the defense of qualified immunity applies only if the officer’s actions involved the exercise of discretionary duties. See Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d 555, 556 (5th Cir.1990).