Case law

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Zion v. Nassan

727 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2010

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to “consider whether the right was clearly established.” McKee v. … . *403 The court of appeals concluded “that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id.

Toney v. Harrod

372 F. Supp. 3d 1156 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 13, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct." 15 Therefore, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the … Clearly Established Law Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, Sullivan is entitled *1165 to immunity unless his alleged actions violated a clearly established right.

James Setchfield v. Scott Ronald

109 F.4th 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

“To defeat qualified immunity, [the plaintiff] must prove that: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … Under these circumstances, it was unreasonable to use more than de minimis force against him.3 Since Setchfield has established his excessive-force claim, we next turn to the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity

Akinnagbe v. City of New York

128 F. Supp. 3d 539 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 1, 2015

Qualified immunity is available if an officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.” … is no clearly established right being violated.

Tommy D. Hopkins v. John L. Saunders, Kyle Vickers, Charles Ausfahl, Roy Temple, Beth M. Wheeler

93 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court determined, however, that the right to such a hearing was clearly established by section 105.055 and thus denied the officials qualified immunity. We disagree.

Curro v. Watson

884 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 28, 1995

If the law at the time of the alleged violation was clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity generally will fail, since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his or her conduct. … Indeed, a violation of clearly established law will defeat qualified immunity. See Davis, 468 U.S. at 197 , 104 5. Ct. at 3020-21.

Lawrenz v. James

852 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 1994

Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendant James is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law in terminating Plaintiff.

Harmon v. Dallas County

248 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2017

immunity (Doc. 26) and the order denying that motion (Doc. 29) and concludes that nature of the challenged conduct was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. … immunity because, at *823 the time Howell was fired, it was not clearly established whether his involvement in the FBI investigation was protected under the First Amendment.”

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.”

Jones v. Nolin (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 13, 2020

“The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is to protect[] government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the law is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decisions of the U.S.

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 .

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.

Redwood v. Lierman

331 Ill. App. 3d 1073 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … clearly established at the time the official acted.

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.

George MacKie v. Katrin Rouse-Weir / George MacKie v. Robert Joss

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Jan 24, 2025

Second, both legal precedent and the statutory framework of c. 123A establish that the role of qualified examiners is not only essential, but quasi judicial. … established statutory or constitutional right for the purpose of determining whether qualified immunity applied. [13] In his complaint, Mackie alleged that Joss "was hired by the [DOC] as a [qualified examiner] and assigned

Kopec v. Tate

230 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2002

Defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … must be “clearly established.”

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University

132 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 16, 2015

is that government officials sued in their personal capacities for violations of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is equally clear, of course, that a “materially similar” set of facts is not necessary to establish law clearly for qualified immunity purposes. See Hope v.

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.