Case law

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Pozdol v. City of Miami

996 F. Supp. 2d 1290 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2014

To defeat a claim to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct … To establish a defense of qualified immunity a Defendant must show, as a preliminary matter, that the challenged conduct forms a discretionary duty of his office. See infra discussion of qualified immunity in Part.

Teri Dean v. Anne Precythe

79 F.4th 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 2023

The availability of qualified immunity depends on the answer to two questions. First, did Precythe violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan v. … Audrain County, 968 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the plaintiff “has the burden to show that” the law is clearly established).

Marshall v. Switzer

900 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 4, 1995

Accordingly, in order to establish the defense of qualified immunity, an official “must satisfy one of two tests: either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established’ rights of which a reasonable person would have … Absent a violation of a “clearly established” right, an official is entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. See, e.g., Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

833 F. Supp. 2d 356 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity A.E.’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable investigatory testing has been clearly established since at least Tenenbaum , in 1999.

Weyel v. Catania

52 Conn. App. 292 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Mar 16, 1999

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … App. 387, 395 , 682 A.2d 1112 , cert. denied. 239 Conn. 946 , 686 A.2d 122 (1996). “ ‘As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional

Rivera v. Washington

298 Ga. 770 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was possible that facts could be shown in discovery that would establish that neither quasi-judicial immunity nor sovereign immunity applied. … But, Cameron did not make such a pronouncement about qualified immunity under the laws of this state.

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct

Military Circle Pet Center No. 94, Inc. v. Cobb County

665 F. Supp. 909 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 20, 1987

Because plaintiff has presented evidence that defendants committed acts in violation of plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff … Because a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights, defendants’ argument regarding Defendant Head’s "prosecutorial immunity” and lack of unconstitutional

Albers v. Whitley

546 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. Oregon · Aug 31, 1982

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. Prison officials enjoy a qualified immunity from damages in § 1983 actions. Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 561— 62, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859-60 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). … Here, there was no clearly established constitutional right to be free from the use of deadly force administered for the necessary purpose of quelling a prison riot and rescuing a hostage.

Beltran v. City of El Paso

367 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 15, 2004

In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Amador is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. c. … of the clearly established legal rules at the time of the incident, and qualified immunity protects her from any civil liability.

Witt v. West Virginia State Police, Troop 2

633 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 4, 2011

"[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Iko v. … That is, that the facts "viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov- ing party," i.e., Witt, demonstrate that the troopers’ conduct violated no "clearly established" right. Winfield, 106 F.3d at 529.

Martin v. City of Oceanside

205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 7, 2002

However, the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. … Therefore, the officers did not violate a clearly established right of plaintiffs. The *1153 officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. 3.

Barton v. Curtis

50 V.I. 783 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Nov 25, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 140 (quoting Harlow … the ‘constitutional issue’ and the second being ‘whether the right was clearly established.’ ” Id. at 601 .

Mitchell v. Cole

176 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1989

In determining if there is qualified immunity, the court considers: 1) whether the alleged conduct establishes a constitutional violation, and 2) whether the constitutional standard was clearly established at the time in … If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.

Anthony v. Baker

808 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 10, 1992

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

316 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1998

Neither side contends the law regarding probable cause to arrest plaintiff was not clearly established. … Under these circumstances, it was error to decide the issue of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

West v. Phillips

883 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 26, 1994

The Applicability of Qualified Immunity to the Defendants The Supreme Court established the modern doctrine of qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra. … The test for determining qualified immunity in Harlow, Anderson, and Casteel focuses on the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, not a “clearly established” affirmative defense. 11 In support of her

Occupy Columbia v. Haley

922 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 7, 2013

“To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation.” Evans v. … Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to consider “whether the constitutional right violated ‘was clearly established in the specific context of the case — that is, [whether