Case law

Barr v. Abrams

641 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 1986

But in any event, all his actions in his official capacity are protected by the qualified (or good faith) immunity which bars a damage action against him unless his conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional … But in any case, my ruling on the question of immunity does not turn on the correctness of Justice Sayah’s ruling. The question is rather whether there was “clearly established” law upholding Barr’s position.

Smith v. City of Madison

364 F. Supp. 3d 656 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 23, 2018

The Mayor is Entitled to 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 … Accordingly, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was "clearly established" at

Cruz v. Cervantez

96 F.4th 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2024

As for the second prong, “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 … Jury Instructions add an “objective unreasonableness” element into the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they do not accurately reflect the law.

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Suarez Cestero v. Pagan Rosa

198 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 11, 2002

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person

Buchanan v. Ford

638 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 19, 1986

If an official establishes “the objective reasonableness of [his] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” he can have summary judgment. Id. … Plaintiff has not cited a different “clearly established” legal standard by which to evaluate defendant’s conduct.

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

The officers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, arguing it was not clearly established in 1984 that they were bound by Brady’s disclosure requirements. … Ditsch moved for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified immunity on Carrillo’s Brady claim because it was not clearly established in 1991 that Brady 16 CARRILLO V. CTY.

Wells v. Bonner

45 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 17, 1995

, they alternatively contend that they are entitled to claim qualified immunity because Wells has failed to show that they violated any clearly established constitutional right. … In this immunity appeal, we must next determine whether Wells's proffered evidence demonstrates the basis for the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert, 500 U.S.

Mason v. Arizona

260 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 28, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity: whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity seeks to balance these two competing interests by protecting public officials from personal liability as long as they do not violate clearly established federal law.

Howze v. Virginia Polytechnic

901 F. Supp. 1091 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 12, 1995

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … For qualified immunity purposes, however, the record is sufficient to hold that, even if the speech is ultimately decided to be protected, that right was not clearly established in 1992 and 1993.

Frederick A. Siegert, ph.d. v. H. Melvyn Gilley, ph.d.

895 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1990

The court concluded that “[Gil-ley’s] qualified immunity defense therefore fails,” id., and that Siegert had established a proper basis for a Bivens claim. Id. at 1419. Defendant then filed this appeal. … Instead, to overcome the qualified immunity that ordinarily attaches to government officials performing discretionary functions, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Waller v. State

64 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1992

The Meyers court determined that the proper qualified immunity test was whether the conduct complained of "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The qualified immunity question is whether the caseworkers' actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Meyers , at 1158.

Saiger v. City of Chicago

37 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess ‘the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved ... when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Wernecke v. Garcia

591 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 15, 2009

“The ‘clearly established’ standard does not mean that officials’ conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” Id. at 350 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. … “[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350 .

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 . . .

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

296 F. Supp. 3d 1006 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 1, 2017

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff's allegations must describe a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right and the right must be clearly established at the time of the defendants' … Before engaging the qualified immunity analysis, the Supreme Court remarked: "[I]t is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that 'clearly established law' should not be defined 'at a high level of generality

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established law.

Galvez v. Bruce

552 F.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary functions and their actions “‘[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Supreme Court has instructed that courts should not proceed to the third step of the qualified immunity inquiry – whether the law at the time of the events clearly established such a violation – unless they find that

Conner v. Rodriguez

891 F. Supp. 2d 1228 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 8, 2011

is entitled to qualified immunity. … City of Madera, 655 F.Supp.2d 1109 (E.D.Cal.2009), granted the officer qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that accidental use of a pistol instead of a taser violated the Fourth Amendment, and the circuit

Anthony Gant v. Daniel Hartman

924 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2019

Benner, 913 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of qualified immunity). … Officer Hartman claims that he is entitled to qualified im- munity because his actions did not violate Gant’s constitu- tional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23,