Case law

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Barbera v. Smith

836 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Qualified Immunity Prosecutors are entitled to qualified immunity from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Yet, unless it was clearly established in 1981-82 that the government owed a duty of protection to someone in Barbera’s position, qualified immunity will insulate Schlessinger’s actions.

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

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.

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