Case law

Butler v. Dowling

750 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 22, 1999

There, the court held that the failure to loosen tight handcuffs did not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation. … Dowling's version of the facts, if proven, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Redo v. Sylvestri, 690 So.2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Duffey v. Bryant

950 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 6, 1997

Previous cases clearly established that the failure of Duke and Hop-son to do so was deliberate indifference. Accordingly, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. 15 3. … For two examples of cases that found the "clearly established” requirement satisfied and denied qualified immunity without citing a previous case with similar facts, see Powell v. M.C.

Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach

341 F.3d 939 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2003

He posits a novel twist to the “clearly established” inquiry, contending that because it is not clearly established that damages may be obtained under § 1983 for an unlawful traffic stop, qualified immunity should apply. … Rather, in determining whether qualified immunity is available, those cases merely inquire whether the right at issue was clearly established in law.

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

Baptie v. Bruno and McNeil

195 Vt. 308 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 6, 2013

We first address the superior court’s ruling that defendant is entitled to qualified official immunity under, the circumstances of this case. * “Qualified immunity attaches to public officials who are (1) acting during the … An objective person in defendant’s position could not have believed that his conduct violated clearly established law. ¶ 16.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, *558 Ms. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ross v. Early

899 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 25, 2012

Thus, if the right was not clearly established, for example, Officer Early would be entitled to qualified immunity without an assessment of the first prong. … Determination of a violation of constitutional rights is no longer a predicate for assessing qualified immunity; a court may first address whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

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.

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established

Daren Green v. Heidi Lutz

679 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 9, 2017

Two Department employees, Heidi Lutz and Dorothy Filson, cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Cty. of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir. 2016) (reiterating the two-prong analysis in qualified immunity cases: (1) whether the official’s conducted violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly

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.

Lawrence J. Brozik v. Mark A. Kalish

942 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1991

II. 4 An official in Kalish's position is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … III. 7 The existence of clearly established law, however, does not end our inquiry.

Felder v. Allen

29 So. 3d 897 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Aug 14, 2009

and/or qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct of the defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional

Farid v. Ellen

593 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2010

For qualified immunity purposes, however, we must more precisely define the rights at issue, and only then determine whether they were “clearly established.” … For qualified immunity purposes, however, there is a separate question, which is whether the right violated by this conduct was clearly established.

Irizarry-López v. Torres-González

363 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 18, 2005

Qualified Immunity Ortiz further self-servingly restates qualified immunity law as established by the Supreme Court and followed by the First Circuit. … In order to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine l)whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; 2)whether that right was clearly

Obert v. State

419 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2024

Qualified Prosecutorial Immunity. … Ct. at 2815 (government officer “entitled to dismissal” of compensatory civil claim due to qualified immunity “[u]nless the [complaint] allegations” are facially sufficient to “state a claim of violation of clearly established

Jordan v. Sinsheimer

403 Mass. 586 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Dec 14, 1988

The defendant asserts that at least qualified immunity is available to him because his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … One issue is whether on clearly established principles of law, he could have reasonably believed his acts to be lawful. Breault v. Chairman of the Bd. of Fire Comm’rs of Springfield, 401 Mass. 26 , 32 (1987).

(PC) Reed v. Flores

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2025

(ECF No. 15-1 at 14-15.) 25 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 26 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … City of Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that Ninth Circuit 15 precedent is sufficient to meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity).

Anders v. Cuevas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 12, 2019

“When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” … Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2018) (First Amendment right of prisoner “not to snitch” not clearly established; defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

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.