Case law

Bolden v. Village of Monticello

344 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … As noted above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct

Miguel A. Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Jorge L. Aquino, Etc.

863 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See DeAbadia, 792 F.2d at 1193 (“the very fact that there is a reasonable dispute means that, from the standpoint of qualified immunity, the law was not clearly established in plaintiff’s favor”). … Given this focus, Aquino was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in January 1985 that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the job of

Brenda Davis v. Michelle L. Munger

11 F.4th 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2021

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established. Williams v. … Qualified immunity is “appropriate where no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the facts when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional

Rancho del Oso Pardo, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 21, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established.

Morgan v. Stringer

945 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1996

established constitutional right at the time that they acted (consistently with that reason for the rule, Harlow, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 stressed the notion that motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to *1132 summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Julian C. Lee v. Jake Gregory, United States of America, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

363 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Gregory moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Although the facts in Mendocino Environmental Center are different from the facts in issue here, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Jeffrey

178 So. 3d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 20, 2015

Accordingly, because the challenged order in this case denied Officer Johnson’s claim of qualified immunity, he has established the jurisdictional prerequisite of irreparable harm necessary to obtain review of the order … A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest claim under § 1983 if the evidence establishes that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. See Vermette v.

Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio

700 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 29, 2012

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clearly Established Right For a right to be “clearly established,” “[t]he contours of that right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley, Billy J. Hale v. Carl Townley

45 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 23, 1995

If disputed factual issues material to qualified immunity are present, the district court’s denial of summary judgment sought on the basis of qualified immunity is not appealable. Feagley v. … An official’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity if, in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time of the' action, it was objectively reasonable.

Brooks v. Berg

270 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at … Accordingly, the Court turns to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “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.”10

Gooden v. Howard County

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … However, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality,”....

Price v. County of San Diego

990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

Birkeland v. Jorgenson

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 1, 2019

However, the Court must also consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right was “clearly established.” … Therefore, the alleged right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 2.

Towery v. State

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. Nothing in Civil Code section 52.1 indicates an intent to abrogate this specific immunity provision. … The court explained that the current scope of this qualified immunity "shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a 'clearly established' constitutional

Cox v. Wilson

959 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2020

Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct. … Moreover, were we to consider this argument, it would fail because the clearly-established-law component of qualified immunity is not a jury issue. See Griess v.

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Wayne Gerling v. Matthew Waite

2 F.4th 737 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … When a defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the