Case law

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

actions violated clearly established rights. … Assuming the facts as Sims alleged them for the purposes of qualified immunity, the county officials' actions violated clearly established law and they are not entitled to qualified immunity. * Honorable Bailey Brown, Senior

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

Gratz v. Bollinger

122 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2000

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … According to the Board, its actions must violate “clearly established legal principles” for its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated. (Id.) (emphasis in original).

Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

953 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity: Counts 9, 11, & 18 Defendant Miller asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity against each and every named plaintiff as to count 9, which alleges violations of Title III, and count 11, which … . *936 1996), in which the court summarily held that defendants have the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity at trial. Id. at 123 .

City of Brooksville v. Warner

533 S.W.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 17, 2017

Because the safe driving of a police vehicle is a ministerial act, Hause is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs negligent driving claim. … For this reason, and to ensure that governmental officials will exercise discretion when needed, our law allows qualified immunity from suit on the performance of discretionary acts.

Figueroa v. Fernandez

921 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 15, 1996

Naturally, Plaintiffs must assert a violation of a clearly established constitutional right before they can even begin to defeat the Mayor’s motion for qualified immunity. Siegert v. … In addition, Plaintiffs’ compensatory damage claims against the Mayor fail to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. On these claims, the Mayor is protected by qualified immunity.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

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

Gonzalez Perez v. Gomez Aguila

312 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 7, 2004

could not have believed that they were violating such clearly established constitutional rights. … complains violated clearly established law.”

O'Donnell v. Tinicum Township

110 F. Supp. 3d 571 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

Qualified Immunity Gaul also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Whether Gaul Violated a Clearly-Established Right “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statute or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established

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

Hargrove v. Riley

100 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “[f]rom liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Riley is not entitled to qualified immunity because she failed to establish that her conduct was reasonable notwithstanding the existence of clearly established law.

Jenkins v. Talladega City Board Of Education

95 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 1996

Thus, the basic principles of qualified immunity doctrine remain unchanged. 22 The confusion over qualified immunity is exemplified by defendants' apparent assumption that relevant law can be "clearly established" only when … establish the law in this case for qualified immunity purposes.

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.

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.