Case law

Falto de Roman v. Municipal Government of Mayaguez

267 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 3, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “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 … which bear on the issue of qualified immunity”).

Townsel v. Jamerson

240 F. Supp. 3d 894 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2017

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants urge the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs claims based on *905 the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. 23 at 9-11.) … Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability, trial, and interference with their duties when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Purtell v.

Elbrader v. Blevins

757 F. Supp. 1174 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 17, 1991

Examining the record in a light favorable to plaintiff, we cannot hold that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. There is a clearly established right against retaliation for constitutionally protected speech. … The unlawful intent inherent in such a retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of a police officer’s qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established. See Coen v.

Bosley v. Lemmon

656 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 31, 2009

Federal Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … so, whether that constitu *592 tional right is clearly established.

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.

Irving v. Dormire

519 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2008

A state official is protected from suit by qualified immunity so long as the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are properly denied qualified immunity only if the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the offense. Reece, 60 F.3d at 491 .

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

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.

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.

Lewis v. City of Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon Police Dept.

984 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity entitles police officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The requirement of a clearly established right means that the inquiry to ascertain whether qualified immunity is available differs from the inquiry into whether the Fourth Amendment may have been violated.

Lockard v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG, IND.

815 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 6, 2011

In the end, the Seventh Circuit did not reach the clearly established prong for purposes of determining qualified immunity. Id. at 377 . Moreover, at the time of Mr. … Nonetheless, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, relying on the “clearly established” qualified immunity prong. Id.

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

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

924 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2013

Fox’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … “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

Mccloud v. Testa

97 F.3d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1997

Finally, as an additional guidepost we note that, as a practical matter, invocation of the Rice canon and the general availability of qualified immunity will move in tandem, because if it is already clearly established that … immunity context, where the key inquiry is whether a principle of law is clearly established, may be perceived as problematic.

Harris v. Morales

231 F. App'x 773 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” … The district court did not fully consider qualified immunity; it did not address whether the applicable constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of Captain Gore’s actions.

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.

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Hinton v. City Of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that "there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to proceed when

Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections

194 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1992

Highest executive officials may qualify for absolute immunity because they have broad-based jurisdiction or extensive authority similar to that of a judge or legislator. Chivas, supra, p 471 . … Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants Brown and Johnson summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) based upon governmental immunity. 1 The remaining individual defendants do not qualify as "highest executive