Case law

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady

728 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 28, 2013

The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was “clearly established”; and (3) even if the right was “clearly established … In this way, qualified immunity shields official conduct that is “ ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” X-Men Sec., Inc. *155 v.

Miles v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 500

347 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 16, 2018

Castillo is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Last, Ms. Castillo contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Marc Hall v. Ramsey County

801 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 14, 2015

“In [section] 1983 claims, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable … See Vaughn, 253 F.3d at 1128 (holding a government official is entitled to qualified immunity if a constitutional right is not “clearly established at the time of the” alleged violation).

Kelley v. LaForce

288 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 8, 2002

immunity so long as their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … qualified immunity).

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.

Parker v. Hyatt

196 N.C. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

Clearly, the legislature intended § 113-136(1) to pertain to all portions of § 113-136 in order to establish constitutional parameters to the authority given to protectors and inspectors. … Based on our determination, we need not address defendant’s argument regarding good faith qualified immunity.

Barbosa v. Conlon

962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

Qualifíed Immunity — In General “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

Thompson v. Eason

258 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2003

“The bifurcated test for qualified immunity asks whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right and, if so, whether the defendants’] conduct was objectively unreasonable.” Palmer v. … in light of that then clearly established law.”

Haley v. City of Boston

677 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 2009

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v.

Afifi v. Holder

101 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Shields the Individual Defendants from the Plaintiff’s Bivens Claims “Qualified immunity is ‘a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly … Howards, the Supreme Court declined to accept the proposition that a Circuit’s own authority can be the dispositive source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See 132 S.

Jeffrey Cozzi v. Cedrick Thomas

892 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2018

Because Cozzi was arrested without arguable probable cause, “[t]he second qualified immunity inquiry is, in the context of this case, straightforward: our binding precedent clearly established, at the time of [Cozzi’s] … established law and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Ramirez v. Hempstead Union Free School District Board of Education

33 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 16, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects public officials from liability for civil damages when ... the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or ... it was objectively reasonable for the defendant … For 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 have defined the contours of the right with reasonable specificity

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley v. Paul C. Kavanaugh

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Feb 23, 2023

Kavanaugh responded that the record supported his contrary assertion that he was clearly better qualified for the position than Perez. … Normally, the plaintiff’s longer tenure with the employer would not establish that he was clearly better qualified than the selected candidate. See Martinez v.

Shroff v. Spellman

604 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2010

In deciding whether Officer Spellman is entitled to qualified immunity under the second Saucier requirement.that the law must be clearly established, we must determine whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Shroff had been arrested without probable cause under clearly established law.

Frazier v. Williams

620 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … Consequently, she is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

Ference v. Township of Hamilton

538 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2008

The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … “To be clearly established for pur *799 poses of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right