Case law

Ex parte Ingram

229 So. 3d 220 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 24, 2017

The same result is reached in federal qualified-immunity analysis by the requirement that the right the defendant is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established,” by which the federal cases mean not only that the … Saucier further instructs that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ Id. (emphasis added).”

Meadours Ex Rel. Estate of Meadours v. Ermel

483 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability "‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which … Second, we determine whether the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable in light of "clearly established" law at the time of the alleged violation. Goodson v.

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

Ortiz v. Kazimer

811 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

This use of force was clearly established as excessive before 2010. … His lack of action on this record establishes a cognizable claim that he violated Juan’s clearly established constitutional rights. State-law claims.

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.

Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District 512

316 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 18, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under certain circumstances, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from individual liability in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Harlow v. … At the very least, the law was not clearly established that plaintiffs conduct was constitutionally protected, thus entitling defendants Krawitz and Burgat to qualified immunity on this basis as well.

Wilber v. Curtis

872 F.3d 15 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 20, 2017

Gikas, 861 F.3d 296, 302 (1st Cir. 2017), but also "whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of" the challenged governmental conduct, id. at 303. … And, a government official, in consequence of qualified immunity, may not be held liable under § 1983 unless the official is found to have violated a federal law right that is clearly established. Id.

Wilson v. City Of Des Moines

293 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 2002

If the court determines that a constitutional right was violated, then the Court stated that the next question that should be considered is "whether the right was clearly established." Id. 9 Graham v. … The Court analyzed the applicability of qualified immunity by using the two-part inquiry established in Saucier.

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 

Brian Grady v. El Paso Community College, Linda Luehrs

979 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless her conduct violated clearly established federal rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The First Amendment protections of state employees who speak on matters of public concern are clearly established. See e.g. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

State v. Copple

224 Neb. 672 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1987

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and unconstitutionality must be clearly established before this court is authorized to declare it void. State v. Neal, 187 Neb. 413, 416 , 191 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1971). … A trial court’s finding that a prima facie case has been established concerning existence of a conspiracy will be upheld unless such finding is clearly erroneous. Cf. United States v.

Dearden v. City of Detroit

403 Mich. 257 · Michigan Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1978

The Court reached this conclusion after noting the statutory power of the commission to regulate all public utilities was qualified by the phrase, "except as otherwise restricted by law”. … .; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.

Ryncarz v. Eikenberry

824 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 1993

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions! … Accordingly, defendants Bailey and Robertson are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

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

McDuffie v. Roscoe

679 So. 2d 641 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Apr 19, 1996

This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. … "The duty to inspect the roads is an affirmative duty but one that also involves a type of discretion giving rise to qualified immunity.

Chagnon v. Bell

468 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1979

These holdings clarify the scope of acts for which officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In view of the state of the law at the time defendants acted, it is clear that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated by defendants were anything but “clearly established.”

Clay v. Board of Trustees of Neosho County Community College

905 F. Supp. 1488 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 13, 1995

To summarize, public officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … A claim of qualified immunity is analyzed as follows: Once a claim of qualified immunity is adequately raised by a defendant, the plaintiff must “show that the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred

Porter v. Caruso

479 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2007

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s actions in light of clearly established law. … When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity the Court must assess whether it was clearly established — as of the date the defendant acted — that the alleged actions violated federal law.

John Burns v. Brad Cole

18 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 29, 2021

-4-  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

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.