Case 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.

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.

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

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.

Gonzalez-Perez v. Davila

680 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 8, 2009

The defense of qualified immunity protects an official who violated the plaintiffs federally protected right as long as the official did not violate clearly established federal law at the time he acted. Harlow v. … The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity defense for a supervisor is satisfied “when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established that

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.

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.

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.

Crump v. Passaic County

147 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Courts have been instructed “not to define clearly established law at 'a high level of generality.” Id. There is no clearly established law that the alleged conduct here violated the Fourth Amendment.

Carman v. City of Eden Prairie

622 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 27, 1985

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Fair-view is thus entitled to qualified immunity because its conduct did not violate any of plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Burl W. Everman v. Lesa G. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 6, 2024

As to qualified official immunity, Deputy Everman asserts that the act of parking his police vehicle at the accident scene constituted a discretionary act, which is protected by qualified official immunity. … The issue is whether qualified official immunity applies to bar a negligence claim if one could be established. -10-  ....

Buehler v. Dear

27 F.4th 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 3, 2022

Since “[t]he extent of an injury is an element of an excessive force claim that must be clearly established in . . . the qualified immunity analysis,”57 we disagree with Buehler that these decisions would have put … long after Buehler’s arrest, the case plays a limited role in a qualified-immunity inquiry, which turns on whether the unlawfulness of a defendant’s conduct was clearly established at the time it occurred.

Monroe Ex Rel. C.B.D. v. McNairy County

520 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 6, 2007

When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the “contours” of the constitutionally right allegedly violated were sufficiently clear, at the time of the alleged violation … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 , 112 S.Ct. 534 , 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991)) (Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit if a reasonable officer could have believed the plaintiffs arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established

Eng v. Coughlin

858 F.2d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

of law which were “clearly established at the time an action occurred.” … Milligan’s omissions in 1983 did not then constitute a violation of Eng’s “clearly established” rights, and Milligan could properly invoke the defense of qualified immunity from suit. B.

Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

72 F. Supp. 3d 997 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 29, 2014

“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v. Howards, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2088, 2093 , 182 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012). … A Court may grant “qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law....” Reichle v.

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

O'Connell, 108 F.3d 129 , 131 (7th Cir.1997). 26 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to "state a claim of violation of clearly established law." … Qualified immunity shields officials "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."

McCue v. City of Bangor Maine

838 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 26, 2016

Because qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability," id. … Here, we focus on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Hardy v. Fischer

701 F. Supp. 2d 605 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2010

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 rights of which … are accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.