Case law

Doe v. Marsh

918 F. Supp. 580 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 19, 1996

Finally, the court notes that qualified immunity protection turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ ” of the allegedly unlawful official action “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ … Accordingly, in this case the court cannot grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity predicated upon the lack of a clearly established constitutionally protected right.

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

791 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … They argue that Mata thus cannot satisfy his burden under the qualified immunity test and show that Rahn’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Maxwell v. Henry

815 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 19, 1993

Nuchia has filed a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. … In cases where a Defendant asserts qualified immunity as a defense, plaintiffs are held to a higher standard and must plead with particularity all facts establishing a right to recovery, including those which negate the qualified

Higgs v. District Court In & For the County of Douglas

713 P.2d 840 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Dec 2, 1985

Qualified immunity provides a governmental official performing a discretionary function with an entitlement to immunity from liability upon a showing that the challenged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … The applicability of qualified immunity will turn “primarily on objective factors — that is, the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.”

Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

953 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … As for Middaugh, the majority correctly states that, in order to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Howse must show that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

233 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 26, 2002

Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation. … as to strip the defendant of his or her qualified immunity.

State v. Antonich

694 P.2d 60 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1985

Clearly, Wyoming’s Preference Act offends the privileges-and-immunities clause unless a close link exists between valid reasons for the Act and the discrimination practiced. … Since the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to the state’s valid reasons for discriminatory treatment, we affirm the Act’s validity under the test established in Toomer v.

Bowser v. Smith

314 F. Supp. 3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 2018

Bowser's *32 pleadings fail to carry his burden to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, and that his claims must therefore be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Smith violated the Constitution, qualified immunity fails only if his conduct violated clearly established law in those particular circumstances. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt

276 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of all individual defendants except for Lewis and Philip. … Analysis Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Wimbley v. Cashion

588 F.3d 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2009

The court found genuine issues of material fact whether Cashion’s reasons for discharging Wimbley were pretextual, and denied qualified immunity. II. This court reviews de novo a denial of qualified immunity. … Cashion is not entitled to qualified immunity under part one of the Saucier inquiry. B. The second Saucier inquiry is whether the right was clearly established.

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.

Menon v. Frinton

170 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Summary judgment dismissing a claim based upon a defense of qualified immunity may be granted if the court finds that the “asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed … The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officials to freedom from suits for acts performed in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.

Vincent v. Annucci

63 F.4th 145 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 23, 2023

Fischer, 837 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2016), that because Annucci failed to make objectively reasonable efforts to comply with federal law that was clearly established by Earley I, he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … established.”24 In Vincent I, however, we made it clear that “[f]or a right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, it is sufficient if decisions of the Supreme Court or of the appropriate circuit

Osborne v. Harris County

97 F. Supp. 3d 911 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2015

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 … A Clearly Established Right The remaining qualified immunity issue is whether the deputies had fair notice that their actions violated a clearly established right.

Ginter v. Stallcup

641 F. Supp. 939 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 11, 1986

Knox’s claims of qualified immunity. Ms. Ginter has not brought the Court’s attention to any clearly established law which movants’ conduct on June 3, 1983, violated. The claims against Mr. Blasingame and Mr. … Where the plaintiff can point to no clearly established law that the federal agents violated, they will be entitled to qualified immunity, as discussed above, regardless of their subjective state of mind.

Porter v. City of Manchester

151 N.H. 30 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · May 14, 2004

Qualified Immunity Lafond next argues that the trial court erred by rejecting her qualified immunity defense. … Clearly Established Right We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity test, whether Porter’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time Lafond constructively terminated him.

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

Ted P. Campbell v. Ernest Mercer, as Mayor of Elmore City, and as an Individual

926 F.2d 990 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 26, 1991

The central issue in connection with defendant Mercer’s claim of qualified immunity is whether it was clearly established law in 1987 that plaintiff Campbell had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing. … Also, the law was not clearly established that plaintiff had a constitutional right to a post-termination hearing.