Case law

Tyler v. Kyler

15 Neb. Ct. App. 939 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2007

Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … The officers’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. They were entitled to qualified immunity.

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.

Dorsey v. Sokoloff

381 F. Supp. 3d 521 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 17, 2019

The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis examines whether a police officer's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time that the conduct occurred. … In consequence, the Fourth Circuit held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for seven of the Taser shocks because he had violated the clearly established constitutional right of an arrestee to be free

Jenne v. Maranto

825 So. 2d 409 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 21, 2002

Section 216(b), in turn, clearly provides for suits by individuals against States. … Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying ... qualified immunity should be...

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

Catlin v. City of Wheaton

574 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the facts make out a violation of the plaintiffs federal rights, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Thompson v. Mahre

110 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 1997

Whether a right is “clearly established” so that a public official who violated that right would have no qualified immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo. Elder v. … All he needs is qualified immunity, which he has if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the forcible entry without announcement and opportunity to comply peaceably] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Demster v. City of Lenexa, Kan.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 16, 2005

The court dismissed this claim after finding that defendants were shielded by qualified immunity. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the court employs a two-part test.

Dean v. Blumenthal

577 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

We hold that all requested relief, other than damages, is moot and that appellee is entitled to qualified immunity from damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign … We also hold that appellee Richard Blumenthal is entitled to qualified immunity from Dean’s claim for damages because there was no clearly established right under the First Amendment to receive campaign contributions during

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

Allen L. Nicklasson v. Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center

491 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if, in the federal court’s independent judgment “the relevant state-court decision [not only] applied clearly established federal … Nicklasson therefore argues that the issues presented represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law set forth in Morgan v.

McCaslin v. Wilkins

17 F. Supp. 2d 840 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jun 10, 1998

A court must measure the objective reasonableness of a Defendant’s conduct by reference to clearly established law. “No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Pride v. Kansas Highway Patrol

793 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 1, 1992

of the law that was clearly established at the time of the offensive conduct. … Because the threshold requirement of establishing a constitutional violation is not met, the qualified immunity analysis necessarily terminates at this point.

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Johari v. City of Columbus Police Department

186 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 23, 2002

Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff first must “identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated” and second, “establish that a reasonable officer in the … The burden then shifts “to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant[’]s conduct violated a right so clearly established that any official in the defendant[’]s position [ ] would have clearly understood that [he] w[as

Boyd v. Benton County

374 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. … Consequently, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Boyd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from dangerous flash-bang devices under these circumstances was not clearly established. B.

Mazurkiewicz v. New York City Transit Authority

810 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1993

“The right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been *568 clearly established.” Calamia v. New York, 879 F.2d 1025, 1036 (2d Cir.1989). … Defendants must be objectively unreasonable in believing their acts do not violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights for plaintiffs Count Four to escape summary judgment by the defense of qualified immunity

Shelley v. County of San Joaquin

954 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2013

of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “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

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Bever v. Gilbertson

724 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 1984

By eliminating the subjective component of the qualified immunity claim, the Supreme Court clearly intended to facilitate disposition of claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment motions, but one must read much into … A public official, clothed with qualified immunity, is not required to anticipate future development of constitutional doctrine, but he is required to respect the established constitutional rights of others.