Case law

Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

682 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2012

Patchman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), or in the alterna- tive, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Gidley v. Oliveri

641 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 25, 2009

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the booking-and-summons of Gidley did not implicate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right such that a reasonable … Clearly established right “Public officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.

Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi

362 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity "Denials of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds are reviewed to the extent that the qualified immunity defense turns upon a purely legal question and any disputed … We turn now to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. "The question of whether a right is clearly established is an issue of law for the court to decide."

Brockway v. Shepherd

942 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 1996

III.QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim of a violation of a constitutional right if the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation and the contours of … WMe the abstract right to be free from unreasonable seizure clearly is established, for qualified immunity purposes the right must be considered on a more specific level: “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently

Looney v. Black

702 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 21, 2012

To determine whether Black is entitled to qualified immunity as to Looney’s procedural due process claim, we must determine also whether the constitutionally protected property right was “clearly established.” 2 Reichle, … To defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, an employee’s constitutional right to free speech must also be “clearly established” under the law. Reichle, 132 S.Ct. at 2093 .

Jones v. State

166 P.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 17, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … ] Once the defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. [23] Jones claims the individual defendants

Warney v. City of Rochester

536 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

are covered by qualified immunity. … LEXIS 18002 (N.D.Ill.2002) (finding that a due process right to disclosure of post-conviction exculpatory evidence exists, but granting qualified immunity because the right was not “clearly established” in 1997), aff'd in

Glass v. Abbo

284 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 3, 2003

. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground-that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Qualified immunity under § 1983 shields officials from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Swint v. City of Wadley

5 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1993

However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time' of the challenged actions … Because such a due process right was not clearly established at the time of the raids in this case, Sheriff Morgan, Chief Morgan and Officer Dendinger are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.

Martha L. Pike Cynthia J. Kincer v. Kermit L. Osborne, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia

301 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Osborne appealed, claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity either, because the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional violation or because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time of the … Because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time the plaintiffs were not reappointed, Sheriff Osborne is entitled to qualified immunity.

Trevino v. Gates

798 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 7, 1992

established law. … Under Harlow , the council members would be entitled to qualified immunity for acts in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Womble v. Singing River Hosp.

618 So. 2d 1252 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1993

Qualified Immunity The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to the members of the board of trustees for Singing River Hospital, Dr. Jack Longmire, Dr. … Moreover, it promotes a goal beyond the pale of the traditional justification for qualified immunity. Today, we hold that common law qualified public official immunity will be restricted to its designed purpose.

Pucci v. Nineteenth District Court

628 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2010

“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 … If a constitutional violation can be found, the second prong of a qualified immunity analysis examines “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the deprivation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Friedland v. Fauver

6 F. Supp. 2d 292 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1998

Qualified Immunity ' Defendants contend that summary judgment should be entered in their favor based on qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Friedland. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth

547 N.W.2d 448 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 14, 1996

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Buford v. Holladay

133 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 18, 1990

Once a section 1983 plaintiff establishes that the law defining the allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, the qualified immunity defense will ordinarily fail, “since a reasonably … immunity if the right allegedly violated in this matter was clearly established at the time that the violation occurred.

Rita Carroll v. Fredrick W. Pfeffer

262 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2001

Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials who can prove that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Next, Carroll asserts that Officer Pfeffer was not entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity because he violated her clearly established constitutional right to freedom of speech by retaliating against her

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

Bernstein v. State

411 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2010

[,]" and if so, "whether the right was clearly established." … In determining whether a right has been clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear so that a "reasonably competent officer" would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right.