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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Pleasants v. Town of Louisa

847 F. Supp. 2d 864 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 12, 2012

I commence my inquiry into Rigs-by’s entitlement to qualified immunity by determining whether Ms. Pleasants claims the violation of a right that was clearly established under the circumstances. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 643 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), an outcome often created by the "clearly established” component of the qualified immunity inquiry, see Lisa R. Eskow & Kevin W.

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

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

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.

Sanguinetti

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … This claim is barred by qualified immunity.

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.

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

Rivera v. Fischer

655 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity The moving defendants also argue, in the alternative, that plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory

Oscar F. Sanchez Liliana Sanchez v. Charles Swyden, Inspector, Warren K. Hayward, Officer

131 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

We disagree, go no further than step one of the qualified immunity analysis, and conclude that Sanchez has not shown that the defendants deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. In Baker v. … CONCLUSION Finding that Sanchez has not shown that he has been deprived of a clearly established constitutional right, we hold that all defendants named in Sanchez’s § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

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.

William Wentworth Foster v. Mary Basham

932 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Basham also contended she was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Although subjective motive (or intent) is not relevant to the qualified-immunity analysis, the knowledge possessed by the defendant at the time the challenged action occurred is, along with the clearly established law as

Gerhart v. McLendon

714 F. App'x 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory' or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer’s failure to do so violated clearly established law and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 955-56 .