Case law

Negron v. City of New York

976 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 2013

An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(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 … Whether the Constitutional Right Violated Was Clearly Established Even if their actions are found to have constituted unreasonable or excessive force, Marchesona and Pigott would still be entitled to qualified immunity if

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

Roberts v. City of Shreveport

397 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2005

established law.” … Louisiana applies qualified immunity principles to state constitu- tional law claims based on “[t]he same factors that compelled the United States Supreme Court to recognize a qualified good faith immunity for state officers

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.

252 Conn. 623 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 4, 2000

Peters, Jr., P.C., 1 to strike the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. … This appeal followed. 3 “In an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to strike, we operate in accordance with well established rules.

Cooper v. Bonaventura

470 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 25, 2007

To decide a defense of qualified immunity, I must first determine whether the agent has violated a particular constitutional right and if so, next proceed to decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming that the seizure was not supported by probable cause, Bonaventura is still entitled to qualified immunity so long as the seizure did not violate a clearly established right of which an objectively reasonable

Bradway v. Gonzales

26 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

Metlin v. Palastra

729 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 9, 1984

After finding appellate jurisdiction over the denial of the officer’s claim of absolute immunity, we exercise pendent jurisdiction over his qualified immunity claim and conclude that the Army officer is entitled to qualified … Unless the ... plaintiff can establish that the defendant officials have violated clearly established law, the claim for damages must be dismissed.” Sampson v. King, 693 F.2d 566, 570 (5th Cir.1982).

Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown

937 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

The court held that a violation of the right to family integrity was not clearly established in the context of a social worker investigation, entitling both Brown and Mouton to qualified immunity. … Those allegations do not establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

Gregory Yancey v. Carroll County, Ky.

876 F.2d 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

A court may dismiss a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against government officials on summary judgment if the undisputed facts show that “defendants’ conduct, as a matter of law, did not violate clearly established constitutional … Therefore, the district court was correct in holding that as a matter of law, these defendants’ conduct had not violated “clearly established constitutional rights.”

Maciariello v. Sumner

973 F.2d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

In denying summary judgment for Sumner and Paskoff, the district court ruled that the law regarding retaliation for First Amendment activity is clearly established and that the “defense of qualified immunity does not ’pertain … Consequently, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Terry Lee Passmore Swann v. Southern Health

388 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. 132 F3d. at 1367 (emphasis added) (citations omitted

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

165 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2015

Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Defendants maintain that they are shielded by qualified immunity from these claims because Plaintiffs fail either to allege facts that establish actual injury or to show that the right of court access was clearly established

Wilkins v. DeReyes

528 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity Turning to Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim, we agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established We now turn to whether the law regarding the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. If it was not, qualified immunity applies.

Felker v. Christine

796 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 22, 1992

In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v. … protection program without notice to the father as father’s right to a hearing was clearly established when the child was placed in the program).

Elliot-Park v. Manglona

592 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

In a qualified immunity appeal, we normally look first to whether a constitutional violation was alleged and then to whether the defendants have qualified immunity as a matter of law. See Pearson v. … Law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity even where their conduct violated a constitutional right unless that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v.

Harris v. Lord

957 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if their actions rise to the level of a constitutional violation, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because their actions did not contravene clearly established … Even where such constitutional rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his acts did not violate those rights. Id.

Eaton v. Meneley

379 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Finally, we are able to turn to the central issue in the case against Meneley on qualified immunity, which is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, as construed in the light most favorable to them, would establish a violation

Bonny Edward Taylor v. Henry P. Hughes

920 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

Constitutional claims and qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … There are two parts to the qualified-immunity analysis: (1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was clearly established

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

Jackson v. McCurry

303 F. Supp. 3d 1367 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 22, 2017

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show both (1) that the relevant defendant violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … To overcome Oates's qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must prove that it was clearly established at the time of Oates's search of EDJ's phone that such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment.