Case law

Remus-Milán v. Irizarry-Pagán

81 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 28, 2015

Qualified immunity Defendants argue they are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s violation.

Richardson v. Quitman County

912 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2012

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Mason violated clearly established law, and Mason is entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the stop. 14 ii. … establish law in this Circuit for purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

868 F.3d 516 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2017

The district court also stated that qualified immunity did not apply because the law as of 1984 and 1985 clearly established that an investigator’s fabrication of evidence violated a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Patricia Jackson v. Andreas Schultz Richard Cadoura

429 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

On September 3, 2004, the district court denied the EMTs’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court held that Jackson alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To defeat qualified immunity, Jackson must show a violation of a constitutional right, and that the constitutional right was clearly established. Brosseau v.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

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

and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 .

Celeste James, Barry James v. City of Douglas, Ga., Clyde Purvis, John Doe--Clifford Thomas

941 F.2d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1991

Purvis and Thomas appeal the denial of qualified immunity, asserting that they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. III. DISCUSSION A. … Qualified Immunity Purvis and Thomas appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Cooper v. Brown

156 F. Supp. 3d 818 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 12, 2016

prong” of the qualified immunity standard. … At any rate, Hope constitutes an established part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence, upon which this court is entitled to rely.

Paul W. Cagle Guy R. Epperson Steven A. McCullom Terry Norwood and Jeffrey L. Parker v. Dan Gilley

957 F.2d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 15, 1992

Standard of Review Gilley appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. … Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Better Government Bureau, Inc. v. McGraw

904 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 16, 1995

This is so because there is no requirement that the ‘exact right allegedly violated’ be previously ‘specifically recognized by a court’ in order for it [to] be held ‘ “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … established” for qualified immunity purposes, but is also perhaps one of the more well-settled principles of constitutional jurisprudence.

Woodward v. City of Worland

977 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

The Supervisors therefore should have been granted qualified immunity on this claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law constituting constructive discharge. 2. … ’s constructive discharge claim, but they have not established qualified immunity as to the constructive discharge claims of Molina and DeSomber; Williams, Sackett and *1405 Mitchell are entitled to qualified immunity on

Hill ex rel. Estate of Loggins v. Carroll County

467 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Dec 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ … If not, “the officer is entitled to qualified *701 immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was ‘clearly established.’ ” Chavez v.

Edrei v. Maguire

892 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity "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 the time of the … The remaining question is whether the right was clearly established.

Torre S. Crockett Dushon L. Greene v. Cumberland College Michael B. Colegrove K. David Kersey, City of Williamsburg, Kentucky Don Hamlin

316 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2003

Qualified Immunity In civil suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … , Hamlin would be entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable officer would know that Hamlin’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established federal right.

Fierro v. City of New York

341 F. App'x 696 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 2009

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 , 66 (2d Cir.1999) (indicating that if a constitutional protection is not clearly established at the time of an official’s alleged conduct, the official will be protected by qualified immunity even if

Thomas ex rel. D.T. v. City of New Orleans

883 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 2, 2012

The City Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional Right. … The plaintiffs have cited no law to suggest that this conduct violated a clearly established right that would overcome Officer Boyd's invocation of qualified immunity. .

Schiff v. Dorsey

877 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 30, 1994

Whereas officials cloaked in absolute immunity are automatically protected against all suits for monetary damages, officials who are entitled to qualified immunity are amenable to suit only when they violate a “clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials when their performance of a discretionary function does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Bennett v. Murphy

127 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2000

Murphy’s Invocation of Qualified Immunity As is well established, qualified immunity is a doctrine that insulates the holder from trial, not just from liability. … Felsing: We thus hold, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter , that in deciding whether defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for

Eva Raffucci Alvarado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Digno C. Giraud Rivera v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.

816 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 24, 1987

“An official is entitled to immunity if, at the time of the challenged action, the statutory or constitutional right allegedly violated was not ‘clearly established.’ ” Bonitz v. Fair, 804 F.2d at 166 (quoting Harlow v. … Therefore, because her actions did not violate any clearly established federal due process rights, Sonia Zayas is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Sapp v. Cunningham

847 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 23, 1994

Was the Law “Clearly Established”? … The critical issue before this Court with respect to qualified immunity is whether it can be said that the defendants’ alleged failures to act violated some clearly established law in existence at that time.