Case law

Sorano v. Taggart

642 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 29, 2009

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Qualified Immunity — The Merits “A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Butler v. City of Norman

992 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

official violated the clearly established law. … In Mitchell the Court held: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery ..

Chinchello v. Fenton

805 F.2d 126 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 1986

We acknowledge that on these facts the distinction between an “I didn’t do it” defense and a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established legal duty is not as clear cut as in most other contexts … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738, instructed that qualified immunity is unavailable if the defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established ... statutory rights” and, based on Davis v.

Dollard v. Callery

185 A.3d 694 · Superior Court of Delaware · Apr 16, 2018

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”63 A clearly … right to fair trial—that clearly was established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Long v. Slaton

508 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

, violated no clearly established *584 right. … Montoute is a qualified immunity decision.

Deary v. Evans

570 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Jun 6, 1983

The Court in Saldana outlined the procedures necessary to establish the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. … The burden of persuasion then shifts to the plaintiff who must rebut the good faith or qualified immunity defense by showing that the defendant’s conduct violates clearly established law.

Benjamin v. Schwartz

299 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2004

Koenigsmann, and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available to a public official whose conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Cox v. Maine State Police

391 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

In that way, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil -7- liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In short, -10- to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized,

Santana v. Calderon

342 F.3d 18 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

It is important for the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis to note that Quiles was decided on November 7, 2001, after Santana's dismissal from her job in this case. … the Puerto Rico Constitution, is to focus on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis -- the clearly established question

Vernon Linicomn v. City of Dallas

902 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can plead specific allegations demonstrating (1) the violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the alleged … immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers’ entry.

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under To-polnicki’s direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Ann Robinette Eric Robinette v. William Jones Richard Fentiman Tim Gassen Joshua Landis Merritt M. Beck, III City of Centralia, Missouri

476 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2007

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s actions “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” at the time of the … Robi-nette, the constitutional right was not clearly established. 8 The warrant to arrest Ms.

Toevs v. Reid

685 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Our conclusion that defendants are entitled to judgment on the “clearly established” portion of the qualified-immunity test obviates any need to remand this case. … Because the law was not clearly established, defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Hall v. Stewart

297 F. Supp. 2d 1328 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 16, 2004

The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating claims of qualified immunity. … We find it does not ... ”). 3 Because no “offensiveness to others” element was clearly established under Fla. Stat. § 796.07 at the time of the arrests, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Robert Oglesby v. Amy Lesan

929 F.3d 526 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2019

Officer Hein and Deputy Lesan moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his clearly-established rights. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

Kelley v. O'Malley

328 F. Supp. 3d 447 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Qualified immunity then attaches "when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … s clearly established constitutional rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Plaintiffs also include in Count I claims against John Does # 1 and # 2 for excessive force.

McKinney v. City of Tukwila

13 P.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2000

clearly established at the time it was taken." … In light of the above case law, we find that the impropriety of the officers' actions here is not clearly established. We thus find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. C.

Washington v. Buraker

322 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 2, 2004

If the answer to that threshold question is yes, the officer is may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Clem v. … Because discovery is not yet complete, this Court must deny Defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity if it concludes “(1) that the plaintiff alleged a violation of a clearly established right,

Bartell v. Lohiser

12 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 1998

whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated a clearly established right of which they should have known. 4

Baker v. Coburn

68 F.4th 240 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 17, 2023

violated clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established stat- utory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would