Case law

Rosario Rivera v. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority

472 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged putative violation. See Crawford-El v.

Franklin v. Fox

107 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 17, 2000

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY MOTIONS Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established … “Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity ‘requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

MILLER v. GOGGIN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2024

purposes of qualified immunity.” … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of

Bernard Coady v. Russell Steil

187 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1999

immunity because, if the plaintiff had a constitutional right, it was not clearly established on March 18, 1995. … If Steil violated a clearly established constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known,” then he may not claim qualified *734 immunity from suit. See Harlow v.

Delgado v. Miami-Dade County

456 F. Supp. 2d 1234 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 9, 2006

For a right to be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, previous case law must have developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his actions violate … The Court finds that Officer David Riley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pritchard v. Arvon

186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.

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.”

Mitchell Alicea v. Aubrey Thomas

815 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2016

Grant of Qualified Immunity Improper Alicea further argues that the district court erred in grant- ing qualified immunity to both officers. … The doctrine of qual- ified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

Archuleta v. Wagner

523 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2008

Archuleta’s clearly established constitutional rights because Ms. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

El-Ghazzawy v. Berthiaume

636 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 15, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields a public official . . . from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Doe v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, we ascertain (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether such right was clearly

Dorsett-Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton

371 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 1, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … County Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was -objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

W. Va. Dept. of Transportation, DMV v. David King, Administrator of the Estate of Wilma Ann King

238 W. Va. 369 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2016

ANALYSIS This case involves our law of qualified immunity. … Peyton’s driver’s license, the DMV is not entitled to qualified immunity under the facts of this case.

Ivonne Padilla v. Peter Mason and Jaeson Jones

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Riggs v. City of Pearland

177 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 17, 1997

The Fifth Circuit has also developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Again, the defense of qualified immunity is a bar to denial of medical care claims unless Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law existing at that time

Felak v. United States

677 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 11, 1988

The complaint does not specifically allege facts which show a violation of a clearly established right and plaintiff has not submitted a responsive memorandum to the summary judgment motion. … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Hawkins v. Baca

114 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 22, 2000

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation; or (2) a reasonable official would have … The question was whether that policy violated clearly established law.

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Fields v. COUNTY OF BEAUFORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

699 F. Supp. 2d 756 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 22, 2010

Officials lose the protection of qualified immunity if it appears that (1) they violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the acts complained … As previously set forth, the qualified immunity shield operates at two levels: (1) the particular right must be clearly established in the law; and (2) the manner in which this right applies to the actions of the official