Case law

Mafuz Blanco v. Tirado Delgado

641 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 1986

As applied, this objective qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government … Defendant concedes that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s removal.

Jayne Swinford v. Joshua Santos

121 F.4th 179 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2024

We now assess whether this video footage established that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. 10 10 Mrs. … immunity, and we end our qualified immunity analysis.

Amaechi v. West

87 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2000

Amaechi — no matter how rapidly performed — would violate her clearly established rights. It follows that Officer West is not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … infringed was "clearly established.”

Baptiste v. Foster, NHAG, et al.

2017 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this case unless the rights Baptiste asserts were clearly established by December of 2014 when the search occurred.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers' unlawful actions were objectively reasonable "as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity standard. 32 The State Troopers are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on qualified

Salvatore Palma, Jr. v. Matthew Johns

27 F.4th 419 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 28, 2022

Clearly Established Having found that there were constitutional violations, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether that constitutional right was clearly established.6 As a starting … Officer Johns’s assertion of qualified immunity obligated the Palmas to explain why Officer Johns’s conduct— either the tasing or the shooting—violated clearly established law. See Jacobs v.

Robert J. Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and John W. Behrens

968 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 29, 1992

in creating the qualified immunity doctrine. … On review of a denial of qualified immunity, “[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established constitutional rights.” Todd v.

Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund

639 So. 2d 246 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

The retained amount increases to $2,000,000.00 in the event the limitation of liability established by the Medical Malpractice Act is modified or abrogated. … XII, § 10. [9] Louisiana courts have held the following immunities to be personal to the insured and therefore unavailable to the insurer: interspousal immunity, parental immunity, governmental immunity, charitable immunity

Robert Aaron Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp

754 F.3d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 11, 2014

Government officials, including police officers, are entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from liability, “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … We analyze qualified immunity in two steps: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged . . . make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Jones v. McNeese

883 F. Supp. 2d 897 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jul 5, 2012

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. … Qualified Immunity In resolving Dr. McNeese’s claim of qualified immunity, this court is required to essentially adopt the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, and then to resolve the abstract issue of law.

Ethel Jones v. Gary Collins, Superintendent of Texarkana Independent School District

132 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 12, 1998

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional'right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep't, 86 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1996). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.

Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

927 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … (2) If so, was that right clearly established?

Fauser v. Memphis Housing Authority

780 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 17, 1991

Once the issue of qualified immunity is raised, plaintiff must identify the clearly established law and present facts which, if true, demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. … on the basis of defendant’s qualified immunity is whether the defendant “violated” those clearly established rights.

Shields v. Shetler

682 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 29, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned conduct

Doe v. Beard

63 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2014

In the alternative, if there was a constitutional violation, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the right was not clearly established. (Id. at 14.) 1. … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense.

Rodriguez v. Swartz

111 F. Supp. 3d 1025 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 9, 2015

Should this Court hold that J.A. was protected by either or both Amendments, Swartz asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity because J.A.’s rights pursuant to the Fourth or Fifth Amendments were not clearly established … Further, the Court finds that J.A.’s rights were clearly established when Swartz seized him such that Swartz is not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa

754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity...................................................1028 1. Clearly established right...........................................1029 2. … qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time and that the officer’s conduct violated that right), the proper question is whether the defendants have

Domenech v. City of New York

927 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are immune from liability for civil damages if they establish either that (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … Where reasonably competent officials could disagree as to whether the conduct at issue would violate clearly established rights, the immunity defense is available. Malley v.

Saffell v. Crews

183 F.3d 655 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1999

That clearly established right must be one established in a particularized sense. This requires more than a general violation of the Fourth Amendment. … In the present case, Crews is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have rationally believed that the strip search was not unlawful in light of clearly established law and the information she possessed

Struck v. Hackett

668 A.2d 411 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 27, 1995

“Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the official’s action viewed in light of the ‘clearly established’ ” legal rules at the time the action was taken.