Case law

DiPace v. Goord

308 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2004

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the proposed defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to adequate medical care for serious medical needs was clearly established and no reasonable jury … Second, even where such a constitutional right has been violated, the government employee is entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

DePree v. Saunders

588 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

First, if DePree’s speech was constitutionally protected, Saunders was entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Foley v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003).

Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.

835 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2016

It is by now well-established that an order denying federal qualified immunity satisfies the above requirements. See Schmelz v. Monroe Cty., 954 F.2d 1540 , 1543 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Mitchell v. … Rule 38 sanctions are appropriately imposed against appellants who raise “clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.” Farese v.

Dorian Johnson v. City of Ferguson

864 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

a clearly established constitutional violation. … Whether Officer Wilson and Chief Jackson are entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether it was clearly established that Officer Wilson violated Johnson’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Darryl Williams v. Paul Delo Bill Hartley Raphael Coad Greg Dunn Unknown Wells, Officer Norma Lavrrar Paul Stuart, Officer

49 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

“Generally, prison officials may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to protect them from liability for civil damages” if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that would have been known to a reasonable … With respect to Williams’s claim for damages, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Eighth Amendment right that

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

863 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … Second, the district court held that Santos and Cavazos were entitled to qualified immunity because how existing law applied to the facts was not clearly established.

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

832 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 28, 2011

Finally, the individual defendants claim qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ms. Ricciuti’s termination. … There is no small irony in the fact that the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity case law is itself not "clearly established.”

Everitt v. DeMarco

704 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2010

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right possessed by the Plaintiffs.

MOLINELLI-FREYTES v. University of Puerto Rico

792 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2010

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This is to say that the Court must find that “[p]ublic officials are ... entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional [or federal statutory] right that was clearly

Randall McElhaney v. Dustin Williams

81 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2023

Because today’s appeal arises from the successful assertion of qualified immunity, we must modify our inquiry. Qualified immunity shields officials from trial “unless their actions violate clearly established rights.” … Accordingly, McElhaney has satisfied the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · May 8, 2024

any clearly established law. . . . … clearly established right of the Plaintiffs to which General Helper is alleged to have violated.”

Jones v. Clinton

858 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 1994

In such cases, courts are required to determine whether the alleged actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

Blankenship v. Warren County, Va.

918 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials who perform discretionary functions “from civil liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Under Harlow , therefore, the focus of an inquiry into a defendant’s qualified immunity is ordinarily the ‘objective reasonableness’ of the official’s discretionary conduct as measured by reference to clearly established

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis

956 F.3d 1009 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 20, 2020

Having concluded that the facts presented do not make out a violation of Gilbert’s constitutional rights, we need not evaluate the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Greenman v. … Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 & n.10 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s grant of qualified immunity based on the constitutional violation prong even though the district court only reached the clearly established

Cortez v. McCauley

478 F.3d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 19, 2007

permissible (violates clearly established law). … We held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, the plaintiff had not shown the violation of a clearly established right, given a lack of evidence of physical injury or “apparent physical damage to the plaintiff's wrists

Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

160 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under § 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … established law” for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.

Elder v. Holloway

751 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Idaho · Nov 21, 1990

another’s ... clearly established constitutional rights?” … Qualified immunity. This court’s analysis on whether or not there was a valid arrest under the circumstances in this case controls the out *866 come on the issue of qualified immunity.

Vernon v. Deramus

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 9, 2024

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because a single incident cannot establish a pattern or practice and Plaintiffs have not shown a violation of a clearly established right. … Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.”).