The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

The qualified immunity doctrine shields “government officials performing discretionary functions,” 5 from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

An analysis of a claim of qualified immunity usually requires a court to determine if the applicable law was “clearly established” instead of determining the merits of the plaintiffs claim. 6 Whether a defendant violated the law is

¶ 9 Individual District Directors would enjoy qualified immunity that "shields public officials from suit insofar as the official's conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 , 400 (2001) (explaining that qualified immunity is "designed to protect state and federal officials from civil liability for conduct that was within the scope of their duties or conduct that did not violate clearly

Individual District Directors would enjoy qualified immunity that "shields public officials from suit insofar as the official's conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

clearly established when the violation occurred."

Qualified Immunity ¶ 10 Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit by government officials performing discretionary functions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

¶ 11 In applying qualified immunity a court must define the particular right at issue to determine if it was "clearly established," and if so, then qualified immunity does not apply.

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing: 1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and 2) that the right was "clearly established" at

%8 Appellant has failed to demonstrate Appellees violated its clearly established right to freedom of speech in a manner that would enable Appellant to defeat Appel-lees' qualified immunity.

As a matter of law, Appellees are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

The relevant question is whether a reasonable official could have believed his action was lawful or constitutional in light of clearly established law. Anderson v.

Qualified immunity is a question of law and as such, we may review the decision de novo. Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989).

There is a presumption of qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official’s conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. McLin v. Trimble, supra, at 1041 , citing Mitchell v.

Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

We also explained that upon an asserted qualified immunity defense “the question of whether a constitutional right is at issue in the first instance should be addressed.” Id., 795 P.2d at 1042 .

Similarly, we note that the prison officials assert that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

However, once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with facts which show that the defendant's alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly established when the alleged

Because the trial court prematurely dismissed the appellant’s cause, he was not allowed to respond to the appellees’ assertions that they were entitled to qualified immunity. . Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2012, see note 8, supra. .

¶ 13 In its place, stands qualified immunity, which is a two-pronged, objective test: Does the plaintiff assert violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and was that right clearly established at the time of the alleged

Because qualified immunity no longer requires good faith, a court's decision that an employee cannot invoke qualified immunity does not preclude an agency from indemnifying the employee for actual damages awarded in a case.

The qualified immunity doctrine may be stated thus: “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Phillips v.

Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990), our Supreme Court held that in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, a court should first address whether the undisputed facts show a legally cognizable claim for relief.

If the undisputed facts in the case fail to show the deprivation of any constitutional right as a matter of law then the defendants did not violate a clearly established right. McLin v. Trimble, at 1042.

Similarly, we note that the prison officials assert that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

However, once a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with facts which show that the defendant's alleged conduct violated the law and that the law was clearly established when the alleged

Because the trial court prematurely dismissed the appellant's cause, he was not allowed to respond to the appellees' assertions that they were entitled to qualified immunity. [15] Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2012, see note 8, supra.

Finally, Appellants maintain Ap-pellees are not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. Harlow v.

In general, the doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials who perform discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

¶ 12 Caution and deliberation are also required in order for a public official to maintain his qualified immunity from civil rights liability for the performance of discretionary functions. See Meade v.

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (officials qualifiedly immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known).

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that

Under the first part of the Wood standard, the qualified immunity would be unavailing to the Regents if they knew or reasonably should have known that their denial of recognition would violate the constitutional rights of the members