Case law

Manhattan Beach Police Officers Association, Inc. v. City of Manhattan Beach David J. Thompson Harry L. Kuhlmeyer, Jr.

881 F.2d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 1989

The only issue before us, however, in reviewing the denial of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of norms that were clearly established at the time of the challenged … The Supreme Court has stated that state and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Wilson v. Meeks

98 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1996

Suffice that the first appeal established the qualified immunity of the individual police officers from all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that “there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

Walker v. Jackson

952 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2013

Second, they argue that they have qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the ■ time of their alleged violation. … The case law addressing supervisory liability is clearly established, and Sergeant Horan has not advanced any argument in support of qualified immunity. He is not entitled to dismissal of Count Y. v.

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

634 F.3d 906 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2011

This involves two questions: “(1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendant violated a con- stitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established … Whether a Violated Right Was Clearly Established The second inquiry, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, is whether the constitutional standards at issue were clearly established at the time the alleged violation oc- curred.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

Cucuta v. New York City

25 F. Supp. 3d 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2014

(see cases cited at page 414 above), defendants alternatively are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established and their actions were objectively reasonable. … The Officers are Entitled to Quali-fíed Immunity for the Ping of Cucuta’s Cell Phone Defendants also are entitled to qualified immunity for the pinging of Cueuta’s cell phone because the law is not clearly established and

Engle v. Townsley

49 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A reasonable official would have known that firing Engle in such circumstances would violate her clearly established first amendment rights.

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips

878 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 27, 2017

Whether that Right was Clearly Established Even if Officer Phillips violated Latits’s constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation—June … Thus, this case fails to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine. III.

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Berrios-Cintron v. Cordero

976 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 27, 1997

Whether qualified immunity will protect an official from being held personally liable will depend on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Cohalan in further analysis of the qualified immunity issue.

McAdoo v. Texas

565 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 2005

“A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action, provided the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question.” Id.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 12, 2002

However, district employees enjoy a qualified immunity from such liability unless their conduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.