Qualified immunity is, of course, an affirmative defense; but once it is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the federal rights allegedly impaired by the defendant were clearly established at the time the alleged conduct

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government actors

CONCLUSION Since Garcia failed to demonstrate that Lawson violated a clearly established federal right, Lawson is entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity.

The Court erroneously applied the law of qualified immunity, i.e. the law was not clearly established in 1990 that a state probationary employee had a property interest in continued employment, and Ap-pellee Dewey is therefore immune

Once a government *368 official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 bears the initial burden of convincing the court that the constitutional right was clearly established.

Seiter, 858 F.2d 1171, 1172 (6th Cir.1988), the court held prison officials had qualified immunity for authorizing strip searches of employees because the law was not clearly established at the time of the searches.

Guy argued that "[t]he essence of a qualified immunity claim is factual" and that whether a right was "clearly established ... is a factual determination."

Rather, our only task is to determine whether "clearly established" law places the question "beyond debate." Because it does not, we conclude Mr. Lampert and Ms. Tennant-Caine were entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr.

Guy has failed to overcome qualified immunity on the "clearly established" prong. We take no position on whether the certificate of service violated either W.R.C.P. 5 or U.R.D.C. 302.

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

“In order to find qualified immunity, the objective legal reasonableness of a government official’s conduct is assessed in the light of the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights at the time of the action.”

Thus, Mathews claims that his employment was terminated because of his political patronage, in violation of clearly established law.

DISCUSSION [113] Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit on § 1983 civil rights claims when they are performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional

Layland had failed to show that he had a clearly established right not to be arrested under the cireumstances. On that basis, the district court held that Deputy Stevens was entitled to qualified immunity.

Layland argues that Deputy Stevens is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known that entry onto Mr.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , the United States Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity: [W]e conclude today that bare allegations of malice should not suffice to

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court took up the question of what constitutes a “clearly established legal rule” for purposes of qualified immunity: The operation of this

is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Mullenax is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if "their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Abell v.

Mullenax in his individual capacity. [¶ 22] We first address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

[T23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to *511 show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

Aside from arguing simply that these Appellees “are not entitled to qualified immunity,” Chapman does not provide a cogent argument in support of his contention. [¶21] We have said about the doctrine of qualified immunity: Qualified

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 .

Summary judgment was therefore appropriate. [¶23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment asserting the defense of qualified immunity. The motion was granted and Deckert filed this appeal June 8, 1988.

established, so that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from liability from section 1983 civil rights laws as a matter of law?

Consequently, they are both entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, and the district court properly granted summary judgment in their behalf. Affirmed. .

the defendant) support a claim of [a] violation of clearly established law.’”

Mathews, 901 P.2d 1115, 1118 (Wyo. 1995): Our standard of review [of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity grounds] is only applicable to determining whether the law was clearly established and whether the

The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v.

In his summary judgment materials, Renner bases his entitlement to qualified immunity on the federal standard, stating that he acted in good faith at all times and violated no clearly established law.

However, Renner fails to recognize that whether a public officer acted within his or her authority is a threshold inquiry under either the common law qualified immunity test or the *1345 federal Harlow test. [5] Renner presents no

[4] Renner argues that we should apply the qualified immunity test established in Harlow v.

In a recent opinion involving qualified immunity, we set out the following: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours

And the United States Supreme Court has said: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established” at the time the defendant acted is the determination of

Decision of this purely legal question permits courts expeditiously to weed out suits which fail the test without requiring a defendant who rightly claims qualified immunity to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation to

Because he did not demonstrate a constitutional violation, Sheriff Blackburn and Captain Cook were entitled to qualified immunity in their official capacities. Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (“The 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 person would have known.’”

The federal court also held that the President and the Board of Trustees in their individual capacities were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because termination of Gressley came within the ambit of discretionary function

In addition, the federal court ruled that Gressley had failed to plead sufficient facts to demon *1152 strate that the President and the Board of Trustees violated any clearly established law, or facts sufficient to establish bias

In setting forth the appropriate test for qualified immunity, the court in Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1420-21 (footnote omitted) stated: [The prosecutor] will be shielded from liability of his "conduct does not violate clearly established