Case law

Zion v. Nassan

283 F.R.D. 247 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2012

Nassan’s answer included “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 98 14-22, ¶¶ 1-47.) On November 23, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to strike the “additional qualified immunity allegations.” (ECF No. 103.) … The plaintiffs’ allegations, which are assumed to be true at this stage, establish that Nassan violated Haniotakis’ clearly-established right to be free from deadly “seizures.”

Chavez v. County of Bernalillo

3 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Timothy Ryan v. Burlington County, New Jersey Appeal of William H. Fauver, Commissioner of Corrections, and Joseph Call, Deputy Director

860 F.2d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 2, 1988

violated clearly established law. … clearly established duty towards plaintiff.

Doe v. Knox County Board of Education

918 F. Supp. 181 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 6, 1996

Qualified Immunity The Board members and superintendent argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are immune from personal liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Coleman v. Sopher

201 W. Va. 588 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1997

for determining qualified immunity in syllabus point 3 of Clark v. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], 7 is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate *596 clearly established laws of

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.

Montville v. Lewis

87 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir.1995), and, finding that the defendants’ conduct did not violate “clearly established law” and thus was shielded by qualified immunity, we reverse. … In light of our conclusion that qualified immunity was proper as to the September search, it necessarily follows that using information gained during that inspection was reasonable and did not violate clearly established

Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton

568 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 6, 2009

“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 a reasonable person … Id. 4 “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Kinney

Sorensen v. City of New York

42 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

There are three ways a defendant can establish qualified immunity. See Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 920-21 (2d *510 Cir.1987). … As explained in Robison , qualified immunity may be warranted where, although the law was clearly established, “there was, at the time of the challenged [conduct], a legitimate unresolved question as to the existence of .

Hourigan v. Cassidy

131 N.M. 141 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2001

They contend that the trial court erred in denying their claim of qualified immunity. … “Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 as long as ‘their conduct [did] not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights

Ayeni Ex Rel. Ayeni v. CBS Inc.

848 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 1994

Qualified Immunity of Agent Mottola. … Qualified Immunity of CBS and Jor-gensen. Both CBS and Jorgensen claim qualified immunity.

Goodman v. Harris County

571 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2009

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … As previously noted, the defense of qualified immunity is a two-step inquiry: the allegation that a “clearly established constitutional right” was violated and the determination that “the official’s conduct was objectively

Krein v. Norris

250 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2001

Therefore, in light of this dispute, the Court is unable to determine, at this juncture that defendants' conduct did not violate plaintiff's clearly-established right to remain free from harm. 6 Krein v. … violated established law. 16 Arnott v.

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that “[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield … Once an officer uses objectively unreasonable force to effect an arrest, he loses his qualified immunity, whether the other elements of an excessive force claim are clearly established or not.

Foley v. University of Houston System

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

Blake, 913 F.2d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1990). 6 entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Thurman King v. City of Rockford, MI

97 F.4th 379 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. … Because King’s conduct “does not fit cleanly within” our existing excessive force case law, King cannot overcome the clearly established hurdle of qualified immunity. Rudlaff, 791 F.3d at 644 (quoting Cockrell v.

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.

Edwards v. Department of Transportation

66 Wash. App. 552 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity. … On the other hand, if the law was clearly established and the conduct of the official is violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights the immunity defense should fail. Harlow v.

McCullough Ex Rel. McCullough v. Antolini

559 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2009

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the long-established standard for qualified immunity in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. _, No. 07-751 (Jan. 21, 2009). … , and, second, that it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the actions of the defendant were unconstitutional.

Falkner v. Houston

974 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 6, 1997

The only issue to be decided by the court “is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” … For the right to be clearly established, “[t]he 'contours' of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right ...