Case law

Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey

915 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

The arresting officer would be entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes that “(1) [she] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [her] conduct was ‘clearly … Since there was no Fourth Amendment violation, much less a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation, Breeden and Sullivan are entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Estate of Garcia Toribio v. City of Santa Rosa

381 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2019

The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer's conduct does not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional … See Sheehan , 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (questioning without deciding whether "a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances" for purposes of Section 1983 qualified immunity

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

794 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct

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.

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

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.

Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala.

618 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2010

Qualified and State-Law Immunity Doctrines As to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly … Courts utilize a two-part framework to evaluate qualified immunity defenses. 19 One inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Hope v.

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.”

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.

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large

18 F.4th 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 24, 2021

We thus find that there was no clearly established right, and we therefore conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Large on the basis of qualified immunity. … We have “held that an official acting outside the clearly established ‘scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.’” Johnson v.

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.

Lamont Warren v. Joseph L. Dwyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer in the Police Dept. Of Hartford, Ct

906 F.2d 70 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 25, 1990

Qualified Immunity We now turn to Warren’s assertion that the defense of qualified immunity should never have been sent to the jury. … Even where the law is “clearly established" and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him at the

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

567 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2009

matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … to determine whether it presents one of those occasions in which the rights are clearly established.

Ramon A. Mercado v. City of Orlando

407 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 2005

Whether Padilla Violated Clearly Established Law. … Even though Padilla violated Mercado’s constitutional rights, he could still be afforded qualified immunity provided that Mercado’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 10, 2002

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Pauly v. White

874 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

are entitled to qualified immunity. … But, as we explained above, Officer -White is entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of excessive force was not clearly established in the circumstances of this case.

Marley v. City of Allentown

774 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1991

A government official asserting qualified immunity must establish that his conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”

Trafton v. City of Woodbury

799 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Montanez, 603 F.3d at 250 . … See id. at 823 (finding that because the unlawfulness of the officers’ conduct was not clearly established, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, without having to answer the question of whether the officers violated

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.