Case law

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."

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

Carolyn Clanton v. Jody Cooper

129 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 17, 1997

Such immunity is “qualified” in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; Gehl Group v. … If these facts, taken together, do not amount to “coercion” under 'Clearly established law, then Cooper is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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

Siehl v. City of Johnstown

365 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity analysis-was there clearly established law-in light of their argument that there was no constitutional violation.

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.

Iqbal v. Hasty

490 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2007

A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … clearly established law.”

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.

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 . . .

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

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

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.

Panagoulakos v. Yazzie

741 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In short, Officer Yazzie is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after the traffic stop. REVERSED. .

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.

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.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

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

Howell v. Evans

922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell’s death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.