Case law

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

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

John Sandul, Robert Sandul, and Devona Sandul v. Timothy Larion, Sgt. Robert Stevenson, and Sgt. Lawrence Little

119 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is … We conclude that Larion is not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violat *1257 ed Sandul’s clearly established First Amendment rights of which a reasonable officer should have known.

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.

Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Eric E. Runion Mark A. Collins Brian E. Roynestad, Charles H. Wilson Geraldine E. Wilson Raquel Wilson, Next Friend/mother of Valencia Snowden, a Minor v. Mark A. Collins Eric E. Runion Brian E. Roynestad, and Raymond M. Kight, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Maryland John Doe, Unknown Sheriff's Deputies Harry Layne, Deputy, United States Marshal, Supervisor for the Washington Area, Operation Gunsmoke John Doe, Unknown U.S. Marshals United States of America Joseph L. Perkins James A. Olivo

141 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 8, 1998

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers' alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were entitled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 826 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (en banc) (explaining that "the law can be 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Delatte v. Genovese

228 So. 2d 252 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1969

Defendant asserted the judicial immunity conferred by Louisiana Constitution Art. VII, Secs. 70, 71 and 72, and the qualified personal immunity provided pursuant to LSA-R.S. 33 .T555 and LSA-R.S. 28:52. … In Burns, defendant asserted absolute immunity under La.Const. Art. VII, Secs. 70, 71 and 72, and also claimed qualified or conditional immunity.

Kaur v. Dual Arch International

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2024

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by Kachlon, we conclude that the immunity provided by section 2924, subdivision (d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47, subdivision (c). … The malice required to defeat section 47 qualified immunity is “ ‘actual malice.’ ” (Taus, at p. 721.; King v. U.S.

Anderson v. City of West Bend Police Department

774 F. Supp. 2d 925 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 28, 2011

Public officials performing discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the burden of defeating an assertion of qualified immunity rests with the plaintiff. Spiegel, 196 F.3d at 723 ; Clash v.

Torossian v. Hayo

45 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1999

Bivens Actions and Qualified Immunity for Public Officials In Bivens v. … The Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity shields them from any civil liability to plaintiffs because the actions of the defendants, as alleged, did not constitute violations of “clearly established” rights under

Washington v. Jackson State University

532 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 15, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualifiéd immunity protects public officials from civil liability when performing functions of their jobs unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The Fifth Circuit has held that the “law is considered clearly established if the contours of the right asserted are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right

Washington v. Whitaker

317 S.C. 108 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Dec 19, 1994

Officer Whitaker — Qualified Immunity Officer Whitaker contends he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We disagree. … We affirm the denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity. D.

Mark Pettibone v. Gabriel Russell

59 F.4th 449 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 2, 2023

qualified immunity. … Wilkie establishes that, in an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, we necessarily have jurisdiction to decide whether an underlying Bivens cause of action exists.

Shirley Mello Rodriques v. Joseph Furtado

950 F.2d 805 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 5, 1991

Qualified Immunity We turn next to appellee Furtado’s defense of qualified immunity. … In assessing the Supreme Court’s rulings regarding qualified immunity in Harlow and Anderson, see note 3 supra, this court has established the applicable standard of qualified immunity for police officers conducting arrests

Betty Grooms v. Judge Steven Privette

127 F.4th 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 4, 2025

Qualified immunity attaches if the defendants’ conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Billingsley v. St. … We start our consideration of the case with Grooms’s First Amendment claim, and, because we are satisfied that any law Bell or Privette violated was not clearly established, we hold that they enjoy qualified immunity with

Hankins v. Wheeler

109 F.4th 839 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2024

“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 a reasonable person … of clearly established law.”

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).

Kimberly Ann Carlson v. Raymond Henry Conklin, Perry Johnson

813 F.2d 769 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 1987

. § 1983 (1981), arguing only that the trial court erred in denying his claim of qualified immunity. … In light of the Harlow decision, this means that: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Avone Kukla v. Andrew D. Hulm Scott Brown

310 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Kukla had to assert a violation of a constitutional right, show the alleged right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and raise a genuine issue … In other words, qualified immunity shields Brown and Hulm from this lawsuit if they could *1049 have reasonably believed their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Moreland v. Dorsey

230 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 11, 2002

Even if the court finds that a public official violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, the official is entitled to qualified immunity if that particular right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged … Thus, the determination of defendants’ qualified immunity defense turns on whether a clearly established right was violated by their conduct.