Case law

Ransom v. Davies

816 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 30, 1993

Because plaintiff fails to show defendants violated any clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim for damages. See Rucker v. … Johnson, 724 F.Supp. 568 (N.D.Ill.1989) (defendants ensured of qualified immunity where existing legal precedent did not clearly establish reliability of immunoassay urinalysis testing).

Anderson v. Blake

469 F.3d 910 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 14, 2006

Anderson’s constitutional privacy interest w as clearly established, and (3) consequently rejecting Officer Blake’s contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Privacy Interest as Clearly Established To defeat defendant’s qualified immunity claim, M s.

Mastroianni v. Bowers

160 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1998

Second, appellants contend that even if absolute 3 immunity does not protect them, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established … Qualified immunity A.

Garcia v. Jane & John Does

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ( … Thus, an officer is protected by qualified immunity unless (1) his conduct violated “clearly established constitutional rights,” Holcomb v. Lykens, 337 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Weyant v. 

Swagler v. Sheridan

837 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 12, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … established’ for qualified immunity purposes.”)

Cerrone v. Brown

246 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 10, 2001

In support of their claim of qualified immunity, appellants argue that in 1995, the time of the seizure in this case, the law was not clearly established that probable cause was required to detain a police officer for questioning … Focusing on the first element in a qualified immunity analysis, the existence of a “clearly established right,” the Supreme Court has explained: “This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity

Oldfield v. Benavidez

116 N.M. 785 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1994

Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity arguing there was no clearly established right to familial integrity. … The test for qualified immunity is two pronged and requires us to determine: (1) whether at the time of the alleged conduct there was a clearly established constitutional right that was violated, and (2) whether a reasonable

Wooley v. City Of Baton Rouge

206 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Morris involved a claim of qualified immunity for events that occurred in 1992. Our consideration therein focused on the law clearly established in 1992. 53 Kiser v. Garret, 67 F.3d 1166 (5th Cir. 1995); Doe v. … The district court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had alleged a clearly established denial of due process. 55 Smith v.

Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez

824 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity 1. … Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity exists to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Reher v. Vivo

656 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

right at issue was clearly established at the time that the alleged violation occurred. … The relevant inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation the officer confronted.

David Velez v. Michael Johnson and Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation

395 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 11, 2005

Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Velez has also met the second Saucier requirement that the constitutional right be clearly established.

Megan Garcia v. Pamela Casey

75 F.4th 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

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 … But the arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity case.

Eddie Simms, Edward L. Smith v. Village of Albion, New York Joseph Sacco, Police Officer Donald Hinman, Acting Police Chief

115 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 16, 1997

As government officials performing discretionary functions, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Thus, the district court correctly concluded that Sacco was entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Bond v. AGUINALDO

265 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials 3 from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … (rejecting qualified immunity defense at pleading stage because plaintiff sufficiently alleged denial or delay of medical treatment, which is a clearly established constitutional violation). IV. Conclusion Dr.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Rosado v. Zayas

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

Matthew Palmieri v. United States

896 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

“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 person would have known.” … When an official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must “overcome” that assertion by demonstrating (inter alia) that the right “was clearly established at the time of” the alleged violation. Fox v.

Monteiro v. City of Elizabeth

436 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 8, 2006

Perkins-Auguste as a reasonable public official would have known that her specific conduct violated the Plaintiffs clearly established rights and was not subject to qualified immunity. … Thus, if Perkins-Auguste acted with an intent to suppress Monteiro’s speech on the basis of viewpoint, she violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Garcia v. Jane & John Does

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 23, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ( … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity.  Vincent v. Yelich, 718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir. 2013).  

Sharon L. Gragg v. Kentucky Cabinet For Workforce Development

289 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2002

She must then demonstrate that this right was clearly established at the time of the infringement. … Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on such a claim, however, is 5 To determine whether the claimed right under the Kentucky Constitution was clearly established, we would, of course, look to the law