Case law

Bridget Murphy v. A. Engelhart

933 F.3d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields an officer if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Accordingly, Engelhart’s takedown did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Ard v. Rushing

911 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 30, 2012

’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

Linda Sexton v. Thomas Cernuto

18 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 8, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 2 The district … The qualified immunity analysis has two parts.

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.

Brown v. City of Oneonta, NY

858 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 1994

Wilson and Hunt claim that the court applied the qualified immunity test improperly and assert that they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it was clearly established that an exception to FERPA did not apply … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Hill v. CARROLL COUNTY, MISS.

467 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Dec 28, 2006

Qualified Immunity "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.' … If not, "the officer is entitled to qualified *701 immunity, and we need not consider whether the asserted right was `clearly established.'" Chavez v.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

204 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 17, 2000

work conditions and responsibilities was "clearly established." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail . . . .").

Ralston v. Cannon

884 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 13, 2018

The district court denied Cannon’s request for qualified immunity. … Procedural Background Cannon filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming he was entitled to qualified immunity. 2 He asserted that to establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Ralston “must show that his

Billy Tyler v. Tom Barton and Frank O. Gunter

901 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 26, 1990

An exception exists, however, where a court denies summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Thus, we conclude that Barton and Gunter did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Barton and Gunter. III.

Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County

916 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 18, 2019

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ and second, ‘whether the right was clearly established.’” … The majority has correctly concluded that Officer Hinds is entitled to qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established law.

López-Ramos v. Municipality of Cataño

556 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 21, 2008

The sec ond inquiry is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Savard, 338 F.3d at 27 . … Rather, it makes the blanket and general assertion that its officers are entitled to immunity because their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. 1.

Smith v. University of Washington Law School

2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 1998

In the absence of binding precedent, a court should look to whatever deci-sional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other … The third step in the qualified immunity analysis is to consider whether a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under clearly established law.

Nunez Gonzalez v. Vazquez Garced

389 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars all monetary claims against them. … 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

Strathie v. Department of Transportation of Pennsylvania

547 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1982

Thus, under Wood , the immunity defense would be unavailable to defendants if the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by them were clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … that their actions would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle

859 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 7, 2017

Determining whether qualified immunity applies therefore presents a two-pronged inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at … Rather, the “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” so as to avoid transforming qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability.” Id.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

the claim of qualified immunity. … If he was discharged in retaliation to his report, this would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital

77 Conn. App. 104 · Connecticut Appellate Court · May 27, 2003

, the qualified immunity provided by §§ 19a-20 and 19a-17b and the absolute immunity provided by the common law are concurrent; that is, that “where both an absolute and qualified immunity apply, the absolute immunity trumps … judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Hicks v. P.O. Jenkins 8917

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 30, 2024

[Dkt. 63 at 4-7.]4 Second, his actions did not violate a clearly established right, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 8-10.] … This is insufficient to defeat qualified immunity. Kisela v.

Dixon v. City of Somersworth, et al.

2015 DNH 190 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 5, 2015

Moreover, it is well established that qualified immunity, when properly invoked, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Penn v. … to qualified immunity.

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.