Case law

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

Anderson's strict elaboration of Harlow, establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelsey v. County of Schoharie

567 F.3d 54 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2009

As a result, it would be premature to determine whether Defendants Bates and Hazzard are responsible for violating clearly established constitutional law or are immune from suit under the qualified immunity doctrine. … 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

Stipetich v. Grosshans

235 Wis. 2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 2000

"Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights." Id. at 469 . … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating "by closely analogous case law, that the defendant has violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id.

Myers v. Patterson

819 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

Without evidence regarding the grounds for Patterson’s decision, we are unable to determine whether his actions were contrary to,.clearly established law. … Given that Patterson, upon his motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, has faded to show facts that would entitle him to qualified immunity, we would ordinarily simply reverse the grant of qualified immunity and

Tellier v. Fields

230 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Judge improperly rejected defendants’ qualified, immunity defense because Tellier failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ex Parte Sawyer

876 So. 2d 433 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 5, 2003

and the § 1983 claim against her on the basis of qualified immunity. … and qualified immunity.

Theresa Kitzman-Kelley, Guardian for and on Behalf of Melissa Kitzman-Kelley v. Donald Warner, Gary T. Morgan, and Gordon Johnson

203 F.3d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2000

Although clearly recognizing that the issue of qualified immunity may, in some instances, be resolved at the pleadings stage of the litigation, the district court determined that such an adjudication would be inappropriate … Qualified immunity protects government officials from monetary liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

McGarr v. City of Peekskill

975 F. Supp. 2d 377 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2013

Doctrine of 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 … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation, “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Brown v. Fogle

819 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Norton v. Rodrigues

955 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

by the Eighth Amendment and whether that right was clearly established at the relevant time). … Accordingly, to determine whether Rodrigues may have violated a clearly-established right and therefore may not be entitled to qualified immunity, we focus on the portions of the record that could reasonably be read to

Doyle v. Coombe

976 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. … “‘To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” LaBounty, 1996 WL 711497 at *1 (citations omitted).

Lawrence J. Korb v. John F. Lehman, Jr. Everett Pyatt Melvyn R. Paisley, and Carl M. Smith

919 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 1991

It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v. … The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Jose Zurita v. Richard Hyde

665 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2011

Nevertheless, Biang would enjoy qualified immunity as to this claim if applicable law was not clearly established as of July 1, 2004. … In some cases, the district court may conclude that even under the facts presented by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and qualified immunity does not apply.

Shafer v. City of Boulder

896 F. Supp. 2d 915 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 12, 2012

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 … “When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles gov *933 erning the conduct

Janet Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach

707 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2013

The district court denied the defendant officers qualified immunity on the claim, reasoning that although their initial entry did not violate Feliciano’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, they plainly exceeded … The district court rejected the officers’ claims for qualified immunity, but solely on the ground that the scope of their search, particularly of the underwear drawer and kitchen pantry, violated Feliciano’s clearly established

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

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.

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.