Case law

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

397 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2005

immunity because they violated clearly established law. … It also properly granted qualified immunity to the prison officials on this claim because their actions did not violate clearly established law.

Soto v. Chardon

514 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 7, 1981

This principle will be borne in mind when the qualified immunity issues are considered. (Ill) Qualified Immunity from Damages A. … Liability The nature of the qualified immunity defense at common law and in § 1983 cases has been judicially established commencing with Scheuer v.

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

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.

Emmett v. Armstrong

973 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

Because Emmett’s excessive force claim alleges a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Officer Armstrong is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … “[W]hen a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation—i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—a finding of qualified immunity . . .

Shain v. Ellison

53 F. Supp. 2d 564 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1999

so as to preclude the Sheriff who established the county jail policy from invoking the defense of qualified immunity, Weber, 804 F.2d at 803 . … Qualified Immunity Defendants seek to invoke the defense of qualified immunity on behalf of the Nassau County Sheriff.

Athel B. Cooper, Cross-Appellee v. William E. Smith, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia

89 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

applicable law was clearly established.” … For Cooper to pierce the qualified immunity protecting Smith, he must show that Smith violated one of Cooper’s “clearly established” rights under federal law. Id.

Moore v. Webster

932 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 1991

for the law to be clearly established. … . *1233 Nevertheless, when deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we need only determine whether there was clearly established law which revealed the wrongfulness of appellees' actions.

Lytle v. Brewer

77 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 22, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Brewer argues that if the plaintiffs’ rights were violated, they were not clearly established, and therefore, he should be entitled to qualified immunity.

Woolum v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 5, 2019

And, through his answer, Digby asserted qualified immunity. See id., ¶¶ 2.5, 2.6, & 2.7. … See Wicks, 41 F.3d at 994; Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (“[T]his court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary

Truelove v. Hunt

67 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 29, 1999

After this finding, the Court addressed the qualified immunity question of whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident. … However, the precise contours of the right are not clearly established. See id.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields government 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 … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Monica Voss v. Gregory Goode

954 F.3d 234 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 24, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Goode is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that no probable cause existed to arrest Voss for interference with public duties or any other crime at the time of arrest.

Grice v. McVeigh

873 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim. … Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Quinones v. Howard

948 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 11, 1996

It is well-established that issues involving the defense of qualified immunity should ordinarily be decided “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Anderson v. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Cody Jones v. City of Elyria, Ohio

947 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2020

Standard Of Review For Qualified Immunity. Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability for official acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Walker v. … As this collection of rights is clearly established, the two officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful-arrest claim. b. Mitchell.

Deskovic v. City of Peekskill

894 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2012

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation, “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

B.F. & K.L.F. v. Division of Youth & Family Services

296 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1997

The DYFS employees and the deputy attorneys general contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they did not violate a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense would ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 . [ Id at 180-81, 536 A.2d 229 .]