Case law

Salman v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 5, 2000

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only “only insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A Plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding whether a right is clearly established. Id.

George Hedges v. George Randy Poletis

177 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Due Process Claim Hedges had clearly established due process rights.

Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc.

195 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 2, 1999

Defendants in their individual capacities: Qualified Immunity To survive the summary judgment motion of the defendants in their individual capacities, the plaintiffs must establish that the law violated was clearly … Defendants in their individual capacities: Qualified Immunity To survive the summary judgment motion of the defendants in their individual capacities, the plaintiffs must establish that the law violated was clearly

Amili v. City of Tukwila

31 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, ■ protects government officers “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute immunity).

Scherer v. Davis

543 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Jun 7, 1982

Qualified Immunity. As public officials, defendants Davis and Beach enjoy a qualified immunity which limits their liability for damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Cruz v. … Plaintiff suggests that this court should adhere to a recent Fifth Circuit decision which held that officials were not entitled to qualified immunity when they violated clearly established state law. Wiliams v.

Levin v. Childers

101 F.3d 44 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials against suit for the performance of discretionary functions so long as the conduct in question “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … immunity because the facts pleaded would not show that his conduct violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have known at the time.”

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.

Kaltner v. Pebbles

628 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 29, 1986

Before the court addresses substantive issues of § 1983 law, it must first decide whether the defendant may benefit from the doctrine of qualified immunity. Harlow v. … The rule of qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Robinson v. Brown

987 F. Supp. 1470 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 13, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND EXCESSIVE FORCE. (i). Qualified Immunity. 6. The Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test for evaluating actions involving a government official’s claim of qualified immunity. … of that clearly-established law.

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

Poe v. Southeast Delco School District

165 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Mosakowski if Plaintiffs have failed to allege she violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established at the time of

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2000

provided qualified immunity from such a suit. … if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

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

Bolmer v. Oliveira

594 F.3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity 9 Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims 10 “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established 11 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was 18 not clearly established at the time of Bolmer’s commitment.

Van Wyhe v. Reisch

536 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 2008

Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 , 632 (8th Cir.2001): Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … .. whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Xiques v. Knight

25 F. App'x 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2001

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering damages. Anderson v. … Creighton immunity may be overcome only by clearly established federal law, not state law.

Charles Brumitt v. Sam Smith

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 20, 2024

circumstances was ‘clearly established.’” … denying qualified immunity.

Wesbrock v. Ledford

District Court, D. Arizona · Jun 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity 17 Finally, the Glendale Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity … In that scenario, the Glendale Defendants would be entitled to 4 qualified immunity. Reed v.

Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc.

973 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 28, 1997

Defendant Montoya has asserted that he is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs have failed to show that he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity *1245 if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established ...

Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields

77 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1999

Although qualified immunity is a defense, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Spiegel, 196 F.3d 717, 722 . 2. … If a § 1983 plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the plaintiff also demonstrates that the law “was so ‘clearly established’ that ‘a reasonable official