Case law

Dillon Bracken v. Kinchung Chung

869 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

Qualified Immunity We first address whether Chung may invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. “There are two questions that must be answered” when an officer seeks qualified immunity. Jensen v. … CHUNG 7 is available generally, we must determine whether [the officer] is entitled to it in this case,” i.e., whether the officer “violated a clearly established constitutional . . . right.”

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow, the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual's constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … Harlow, at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 20 The district court denied the deputies' claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas's clearly established constitutional rights.

Cudd v. Aldrich

982 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 7, 1997

The next inquiry for qualified immunity purposes is whether Cudd’s First Amendment right to be free from political patronage dismissal was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Second, and more importantly, the inquiry into qualified immunity is an objective one: the Court must determine what a reasonable public official would have understood as clearly established law.

Barkes Ex Rel. Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc.

766 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 5, 2014

See id. at 678 (“In the context of determining whether there is a violation of clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required to impose Bivens liability on the subordinate … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

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.

Morgan Hansen v. Thomas Black

872 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

To defeat summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Hansen must point to facts showing both that she suffered a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming a constitutional violation, Trooper Black is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services

555 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly' established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Feathers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Doe v. Whelan

732 F.3d 151 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2013

Such a state official is entitled to qualified immunity from actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … Where the law is clearly established, “a caseworker is . . . entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context.”

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.

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.

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.

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.