Case 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.

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.

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

Patino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

207 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2016

“[T]he 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 … whether the constitutional right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.

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

Duckett v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma

986 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 14, 2013

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity protects a public employee from personal liability under § 1983 unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct in the … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). “ ‘In order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight

Wadith Nader v. City of Papillion

917 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

On that claim, the district court found: (1) Svajgl and Iversen were entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Hessig was entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity; (3) Lyons and Polikov were entitled to qualified … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing

Cronn v. Buffington

150 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1998

The district court granted qualified immunity to all Defendants. … Because there was no “clearly established” right to be free from seizure under such a warrant, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants based on the defense of qualified immunity

Ford v. Anderson County

102 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2024

of qualified immunity. … This court’s unpublished opinions cannot clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity, but they nevertheless may “aptly illustrate[] the established right.” Cooper v.

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Jackson County Drain Commissioner v. Village of Stockbridge

270 Mich. App. 273 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

Drains extending into more than 1 county or affecting lands in more than 1 county, shall be established and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this act regulating the establishment and construction of drains … Instead, the Court clearly stated that MCL 691.1407 did not permit a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity. Pohutski, supra at 678-679 . In doing so, the Court relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

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

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration

968 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 2012

Chamizo finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish any violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 5-15.) … In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Glass v. Mayas

984 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1993

Due Process Qualified immunity protects government officials from the “costs of trial” and “broad reaching discovery” by shielding them from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”