Case law

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.

Lombardi Rest Home, Inc. v. Richter

63 Conn. App. 646 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 5, 2001

II In addition, the defendants raise the question of whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. … . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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.

Williams v. City of Yazoo

41 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

III Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Ct. 9, 11 (2021), but we have seen cases like this before. 6 The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity but did not address whether the law was clearly established.

Pisoni v. McCord

2018 Ohio 64 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2018

Thereafter, the burden shifts to plaintiff to establish that the defendant’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in the defendant’s position would have clearly understood that he was under an … The question is whether Pisoni established McCord’s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any officer in McCord’s position (objectively measured) would have clearly understood he was under an affirmative

Krein v. Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … holding that "plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established."

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Kutilek v. Gannon

132 F.R.D. 296 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 24, 1990

It is premised on the contention that the challenged conduct was undertaken in good faith or did not violate clearly established law or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. … functions will be shielded 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, is resolved, discovery

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).

Murcia v. County of Orange

226 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 2002

the supervisor liable were clearly established at the time of the violation. … I conclude that Bigger is entitled to qualified immunity in this situation. In essence, plaintiff argues that Bigger cannot acquire qualified immunity by accident.

Liberian Community Association v. Lamont

970 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 14, 2020

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … “[W]e have repeatedly held[] that a state statute does not serve as ‘clearly established law’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” Tooly v. Schwaller, 919 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2019).

Chateaubriand v. Gaspard

97 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 7, 1996

of qualified immunity. … The district court further denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because “discharging a public employee in retaliation for protected speech violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would

Dehorty v. New Castle County Council

560 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 14, 1983

immunity defense in a section 1983 action. *891 Defendants argue that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the defense of qualified immunity. … The defendants, therefore, bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the qualified immunity defense set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Derrick Newman v. James Guedry

703 F.3d 757 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

and on the § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The officers maintain that their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Meyers v. Majkic

189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Gloria Bustillos

556 S.W.3d 394 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jun 13, 2018

First, the federal court’s ruling was based on “qualified immunity” which evaluates whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time. … (recognizing that the terms “official immunity” and “qualified immunity” are often used interchangeably, but that the doctrines are separate defenses; qualified immunity applies when federal law claims are raised while

Francis Dougherty v. Philadelphia School District

772 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 2014

“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.” … Having found a violation of Dougherty’s First Amendment rights, the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether that right was “clearly established.”

Christopher Jones v. Howard Skolnik

671 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 16, 2016

a claim of violation of clearly established law"). 2. … When we address the issue of qualified immunity at the pleading stage, we ask whether the complaint "allege[s] facts sufficient to support [a] claim[] that [the defendant’s] conduct violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established

Elyese Anderson v. Michael Waddle

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity: General Principles “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also an immunity from suit. Id.

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.