Case law

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport

294 F. Supp. 3d 529 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 14, 2018

A defendant who can validly raise a qualified immunity defense will enjoy its protection so long as the allegedly violated constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … The qualified immunity inquiry turns on "the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken". Id. at 244, 129 S.Ct. at 822.

Suarez Cestero v. Pagan Rosa

198 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 11, 2002

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

McCall v. Williams

59 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 16, 1999

Plaintiff maintains that his right to be free from the application of handcuffs which were too tight was clearly established on the date of the incident. … Just as the Supreme Court found that the officials in Wilson had violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, yet they were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific right had not been clearly established at

Michael Kopec v. Tyrone Tate, Officer Township of Whitemarsh

361 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 17, 2004

Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 , 142 n. 15 (3d Cir.2001). The Supreme Court held in Saucier v.

Jose Doe v. Dave Goodman

691 F. App'x 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 25, 2017

violated clearly established law). … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (officer conducting search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show search violated Fourth Amendment).

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.

Daniczek v. Spencer

156 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 11, 2016

In sum, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . … Spencer violated a clearly established rule.

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.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[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.”

Carswell v. Camp

37 F.4th 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … “Unless 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.”

Johnny Banks v. Shelby Hawkins

999 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 27, 2021

Where the record does not conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is inappropriate. Nance v. … to overcome qualified immunity.

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

Daniel Simmonds v. Genesee County

682 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

To satisfy the first Saucier prong and establish a constitutional violation to defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, Simmonds “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly … the violation of the constitutional right was clearly established. 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

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.”

Kanzler v. Renner

937 P.2d 1337 · Wyoming Supreme Court · May 23, 1997

The standard of qualified immunity established under our common law is distinct from the federal standard. 4 In Dar-rar v. … In his summary judgment materials, Renner bases his entitlement to qualified immunity on the federal standard, stating that he acted in good faith at all times and violated no clearly established law.

Rivera v. Mattingly

604 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability under certain circumstances. … For a claim of qualified immunity to be defeated, a plaintiff must have alleged facts constituting a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

O'Connell, 108 F.3d 129 , 131 (7th Cir.1997). 26 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to "state a claim of violation of clearly established law." … Qualified immunity shields officials "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 known."

Hill v. CARROLL COUNTY, MISS.

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.