Case law

Montanez v. Celaya

49 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the police officer in question was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of McClish’s arrest, the law was not clearly established.

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

652 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Sep 9, 2009

On this claim, the officers have asserted the defense of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … immunity analysis, are more properly explored under the clearly established prong.

Hartman v. Middleton

974 P.2d 1007 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1998

to defeat the defense of qualified immunity. … Where qualified immunity is raised in a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must determine, based upon the allegations of the plaintiff, whether a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official

Willingham v. Loughnan

261 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

The Officer Defendants argue, most substantively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their acts violated no clearly established law at the pertinent time. … established preexisting law for qualified immunity purposes.

Isely v. Capuchin Province

877 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 1995

General Electric Company, supra, make clear that the initial foundational requirement a proponent of expert scientific testimony must meet as a pre-requisite to admissibility is to establish that the witness is qualified … It was in Frye that the "general acceptance” requirement was first established. 4 .

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987

Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Dana Ault v. Leslie Speicher

634 F.3d 942 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … On a qualified immunity claim the court confronts two questions: (1) whether the plain- tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitu- tional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly estab- lished at the time

Gill v. Devlin

867 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2012

Therefore, unless the pleadings plausibly state a claim of an objectively unreasonable violation of clearly-established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before full discovery is commenced … CONCLUSION Gill has plausibly alleged the violation of her clearly established equal-protection rights.

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory

Thrower v. Pennsylvania

873 F. Supp. 2d 651 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 31, 2012

Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity does not apply because Decedent’s rights were clearly established at the time the Individual Defendants acted, even if it was uncertain at that time whether their actions would subject … Instantly, Defendants’ contention that it was not clearly established law that certain portions of the Medicaid Act create individually enforceable rights misses the qualified immunity mark.

Estate of Joseph Valverde v. Dodge

967 F.3d 1049 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2020

On this issue we rely on the second prong of qualified immunity, the absence of clearly established law to support Plaintiff’s claim. … Prong Two - Clearly Established Law Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Sergeant Dodge turns on whether the Estate has shown that his challenged conduct violated clearly established law

Munroe v. City of Austin

300 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 12, 2018

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the official violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. *923 Saucier v. … Assuming, without deciding, that deploying his taser was an excessive use of force, Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity because doing so did not violate clearly established law.

Wright v. City of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

violated was clearly established. … right was clearly established.”

Scott v. Fischer

616 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2010

“clearly established” in the qualified immunity context, which governs the conduct of government officials who are likely neither lawyers nor legal scholars. … established when they took place and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist

942 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2019

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis and find that, regardless of whether M.L.’s rights were violated, the right at issue was not clearly established. See Davis v.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are shielded 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Aug 2, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is" qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

625 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

Officer Davis moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, claiming that his actions did not violate the constitution and, if they did, that the law was not clearly established at the time. See Aplts. … Clearly Established Denial of qualified immunity is appropriate if the officer violated law that was “clearly established” at the time of his or her conduct. See, e.g., Perez v.