Case law

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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

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.”

Herbert L. Board v. Karl Farnham, Jr.

394 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2005

The Boards also claim that the constitutional right to oral hygiene supplies was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, which would preclude a holding that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

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.

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.

Massaro v. Town of Trumbull

525 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 13, 2007

Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions *307 violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

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?

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

Williams v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky

24 F.3d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1994

qualified immunity issues. … III. 69 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Williams' First Amendment claim. It was clearly established that the speech Williams cites as the reason for her demotion addressed matters of public concern.

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

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

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.