Case law

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.

Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7

283 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

On July 20, 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing as one ground for dismissal section 8—101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which establishes a one-year limitation period for actions commenced against local public … Although the Tort Immunity Act clearly establishes a one-year limitation period for actions filed against local public entities, in addition to following the statute of limitations applicable to an action, we must also follow

Gallardo v. DiCarlo

203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

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

Madsen v. Borthick

658 P.2d 627 · Utah Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1983

We are unwilling to read this artificial distinction into the Governmental Immunity Act in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative purpose to that effect. We find none. … of governmental immunity established in the Governmental Immunity Act. 10 The 1978 amendment to the Governmental Immunity Act, in § 63-30-4, establishes a new statutory standard for official immunity.

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.

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.”

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 .

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.

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.

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

Kade v. Workie

238 F. Supp. 3d 625 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 27, 2017

actions are protected by qualified immunity if she can show that the ‘offending’ conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, setting aside the issue as to whether Defendant could even assert the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs constitutional right is clearly established in light of the established law.

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).

Brown v. Gilmore

278 F.3d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated … Because, "[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity."

Terrell v. Allgrunn

114 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. … When evaluating whether [Allgrunn] violated clearly es- tablished law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant

Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court

601 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 3, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a ‘constitutional right’ and (2) that the right Svas clearly established.’ ” Leary

Williams v. Ballard

466 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

I The district court concluded that qualified immunity shielded defendants, precluding damages, because Williams’s right to procedural due process was not a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … This makes sense, given the different goals of AEDPA and qualified immunity.

R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin

210 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 19, 2000

“This court has . . . taken a broad view of what constitutes ‘clearly established law’ for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry. . . ” Boswell v. … In Martin’s supplementary motion for summary judgment, Martin argues in the qualified immunity portion of this brief that he “is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that he could be guilty

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.