Case law

Harold Wayne Enlow v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, Jim Wall, in His Individual Capacity

962 F.2d 501 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions in light of clearly established law. Id. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … s first inquiry — he has also set forth a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. We now address the second inquiry under Siegert— Wall’s entitlement to his qualified immunity defense.

Youngs v. Fusaro

179 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert, as a defense to both of Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, that they are shielded from the lawsuit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Martel v.

Martinez v. City of Schenectady

115 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 13, 1997

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow v. … The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from Martinez’s section 1983 claim.

Maye v. Reno

231 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered,...

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Evenstad v. Herberg

994 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2014

A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate “clearly established” law at the time. 6 Defendants argue that the infliction of de minimis injury did not violate clearly established law … Defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to all of Evenstad’s claims, but as the laws relevant to his other surviving claims were clearly established in 2006 (e.g., the right to be free from retaliation for the exercise

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

April Myrick v. Fulton County, Georgia

69 F.4th 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2023

That means that if a defendant raises the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, the district court must dismiss any claims that do not allege a violation of clearly established law. … Qualified immunity “shields a government official from lia- bility unless he violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Ronald C. Ayersman and Ronald C. "Mackey" Ayersman, Assistant State Fire Marshal v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford and West Virginia State Fire Marshal's Office v. Tammy S. Wratchford and Michael W. Wratchford

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

rights that may be enforced via civil suits, so it cannot be a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law,” the violation of which can overcome qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws . . . or are otherwise fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive[.]”

Aaron Tobey v. Terri Jones

706 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 25, 2013

Tobey did not allege a facially valid First Amendment claim and even if he did, qualified immunity bars such a claim because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. II. … occurred, and two, whether the right violated was clearly established.

Crawford v. Kemp

139 P.3d 1249 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2006

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable … entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .

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.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services For Children And Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

alleged a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

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.

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

Henry Lavado, Jr. v. Patrick W. Keohane

992 F.2d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The prison officials again respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is ... no clearly established law holding that a prisoner has a constitutional right to have his legal related mail opened only … whether the officers did acts which violate clearly established rights.”); Pecsi 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.

Arizmendi-Corales v. Javier Rivera

176 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 19, 2001

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right which should have been … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davila, 135 F.3d 182, 187 (1st Cir.1998).

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.