Case law

Kravitz v. Police Department of the Hudson

285 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The defendant must establish that he [or she] had an objectively reasonable belief that his [or her] act violated no clearly established rights [citation omitted]” (Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102

Wallett v. Anderson

198 F.R.D. 20 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 1, 2000

Qualified Immunity Delaney next asserts that she is immune from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is beyond cavil that qualified immunity shields a defendant “from liability for civil damages insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory … “The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Grove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Commission

642 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 1986

All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 2. … Qualified Immunity All defendants seek insulation from Section 1983 damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Cuervo v. Sorenson

112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Garrett v. Stratman

254 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2001

of clearly established law.” … a violation of clearly established law.”

Kristin Hart v. City of Redwood City

99 F.4th 543 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2024

Moreover, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. … To deny qualified immunity, not only must a constitutional right be violated, but that right must be “clearly established” at the time. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 62–63.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson

785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins' Bivens claim. 2.

Edward Sialoi v. City of San Diego

823 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 24, 2016

Whether the constitutional right was clearly established As with the three teenagers, the background circumstances on which the defendants rely to establish qualified immunity (the officers presence in a high-crime … Thus, Sandoval’s discussion of clearly established law applies equally here.

Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr.

347 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 28, 2018

Government officials invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves "from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." 12 "For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of that right must be sufficiently

Hydrick v. McDaniel

500 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 2007

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … b)(6) based on qualified immunity. 3.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Therefore, the defendants were entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Kipps, 197 F.3d at 768.

Nita Gordon v. Keith Bierenga

20 F.4th 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2021

Under the familiar test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from suit unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” when the event … Even when a defendant violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the right at issue was “clearly established[.]” Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232).