Case law

Yerdon v. Poitras

120 F.4th 1150 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2024

And it is well-established that Congress has not validly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity for claims arising under Title I. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001). … Because Congress has clearly expressed its intention to abrogate state sovereign immunity for all claims under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C.

Soto v. Trejo

District Court, D. New Mexico · May 29, 2024

In their Motion, Defendants argue that Defendant Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not alleged that she violated any clearly established law or acted with requisite intent to state a § 1983 … Defendants point out that, under Plaintiff’s view of what constitutes a violation of “clearly established” law, any violation of an administrative rule would suffice to deny qualified immunity to a state official.

Javier Vanegas v. City of Pasadena

46 F.4th 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 31, 2022

CITY OF PASADENA qualified immunity analysis—whether the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not “clearly established.” … And even if no probable cause existed under state law, they contend they are still entitled to qualified immunity given there was no violation of clearly established law.

Dufort v. City of New York

874 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the Defendants argue that even if Dufort has established the requisite elements of his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity … Qualified immunity establishes a defense for a government actor acting in his official capacity. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Kim D. Lee v. Luis Ferraro

284 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 5, 2002

Qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821, 826 n.4 (11th Cir. 1997) (“In this circuit, the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Brown v. Callahan

623 F.3d 249 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 7, 2010

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v. … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.

S.G., as Guardian Ad Litem of A.G. A Minor and Individually v. Sayreville Board of Education Georgia B. Baumann William L. Bauer

333 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

In any event, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law to the contrary. … speech, procedural due process or equal protection, 3 and because there is no clearly established law to the contrary, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity. 4 IV.

BUSH v. RENEGAR

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 2020

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity has long “protect[ed] government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States

244 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 26, 2001

Moreover, since Moore's conduct took place prior to the 1994 decision in Albright, it could not have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Moore is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … established constitutional right and that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Donovan v. City of Milwaukee

17 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As the Adams court correctly ob *953 served, “generalities are just not helpful” in qualified immunity decisions because “[t]he bright line of ‘clearly established law”’ is “staked out by a process of inclusion and exclusion

Cindy L. Cameron and Lawrence M. Cameron v. James McCauley Seitz, Monroe County Probate Court

38 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 1994

Seitz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Flatford v. … The fact that the contours of such protection simply have not been clearly extended to engagements compels the con *276 elusion that qualified immunity is mandated here. 5 Because there were no clearly established constitutional

Parker v. St. Stephen's Urban Dev.

243 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1990

That total figure is *321 prorated among the apartments to establish the "basic rent" for each unit. … Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition. No benefactor whose charitable contributions require protection exists in this case.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

Henry Clash v. Michael Beatty

77 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 12, 1996

Beatty moved for summary judgment on the ground that he enjoys a qualified immunity from liability, because, even if he did what Clash described, those actions would not have violated any clearly established Fourth Amendment … When a defendant officer raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right. Rice v.

James P. Kyricopoulos v. Town of Orleans

967 F.2d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

immunity shielded the police officer who arrested appellant from liability for damages; and (3) absolute immunity protected this officer from liability for testimony given at the grand jury and at trial. … Because the district court clearly was correct in finding the police officer absolutely immune for testimony given at trial, see Briscoe v.

Robert Walker v. Robert McClellan Superintendent, Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, L. Bates, Hearing Officer

126 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

Alternatively, the district court noted that dismissal was mandated on account of Bates’s right to qualified immunity because Walker had no clearly established right to call witnesses in his defense at the disciplinary hearing … Qualified immunity protects prison officials from personal liability under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Osier v. Burlington Telecom

Vermont Superior Court · Oct 20, 2010

“‘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 what he is doing violates that right.’” … Phrased another way, the question of “clearly established law” in this case is as follows: (1) was it clearly established law that a government official must comply with a regulatory entity’s order such as the Certificate

Albero v. Worcester County Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 11, 2025

Elliott, 25 F.4th 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that qualified immunity applies when either (1) a plaintiff fails to state a violation of a federal right or (2) a defendant shows the right was not clearly established … Having determined that Plaintiffs fail to state a violation of Arthur’s federal rights, there is no need for the Court to address, for qualified-immunity purposes, whether any such right was “clearly established” at the

Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 19, 2023

Defendants have raised a viable issue regarding the manner in which the Court analyzed 19 qualified immunity. See Cunningham v. … Fry, 873 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he 4 ‘clearly established’ inquiry is a question of law that only a judge can decide.”).

Sherry Wilkerson v. City of Akron, Ohio

906 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2018

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability so long as they do not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable officer in their shoes would have recognized. Harlow v. … Danzy did not violate Thomas’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.