Case law

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.”

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

44 F.4th 363 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

The district court dismissed her First Amendment infringement claim against various officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding that any violation was not clearly established at the time. … of clearly established law.

Freeman v. Blair

793 F.2d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 4, 1986

The decisions to inspect without a warrant clearly were functions for which Blair and Massa are not entitled to absolute immunity nor, as we conclude below, were the decisions reasonable under clearly established law. … Our task then will be to determine whether the law in the areas implicated in those claims was clearly established at the time of the actions here at issue and thus whether the state officials’ qualified immunity defenses

Conlogue v. Hamilton

906 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

officials who act incompetently or in disregard of clearly established legal principles. … Qualified immunity inoculates government officials from civil liability based on their discretionary actions and decisions which, although injurious, "do[] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Ferguson v. Leiter

220 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Bailey v. Iles

78 F.4th 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because the plaintiff, to overcome qualified immunity, “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “if there is no violation, or if the conduct did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Isbell v. Bellino

983 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

Due Process Claims and Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry requires further discussion. … Thus, absolute immunity is not applicable. C. Qualified Immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity Standard.

Townsend v. Jefferson County

601 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

that the deputies violated her clearly established civil rights. … immunity because Townsend had presented evidence that the deputies violated her clearly established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Barton v. Curtis

497 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 30, 2007

(2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.” … 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 would have known

Brown v. Office of State Comptroller

211 F. Supp. 3d 455 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2016

Third, defendants contend that, even if Brown’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, the law at issue is not clearly established and thus they are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Courts typically frame the qualified immunity analysis by requiring the defendant to establish one of two conditions: that “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 8, 2024

any clearly established law. . . . … clearly established right of the Plaintiffs to which General Helper is alleged to have violated.”

Tamela Muir v. Decatur County, Iowa

917 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

established federal rights.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, “summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established.” Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. “[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Hilliard v.

Aceto v. Kachajian

240 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 24, 2003

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from section 1983 civil liability so long *124 as they ‘acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances.’ ” Veilleux v. … Clearly Established Right Because the factual allegations — if true — show defendants violated a constitutional right, the critical question is whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

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

Kely Wilkins, Individually and as the Successor in Interest to Decedent William Alberto Wilkins William Alberto Wilkins, Individually the Estate of William Wilkins William Randolph Wilkins, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kely Wilkins Fernando Wilkins, Individually Josefina Wilkins, Individually v. City of Oakland v. Tim Scarrott, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland Andrew Koponen, Individually, and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where `clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers' actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.

Kenneth Harold Swipies v. Frank Kofka

348 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 3, 2003

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow v. … We review the denial of a summary judgment motion claiming qualified immunity only to the extent the denial turns on an issue of law. See Behrens v.