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

Mooneyham v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EX'RS

802 So. 2d 200 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 11, 2001

The defendants argue that they are immune from suit as to this claim because, they say, Mooneyham has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We agree. … The threshold question for determining whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to a given constitutional claim is whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly recognized constitutional right.

Ferris v. County of Kennebec

44 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 1999

Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified Immunity Sprowl’s contention that her, liability is precluded by qualified immunity is similarly unpersuasive.

Elmer J. Lappe v. Paul Loeffelholz, Dr. Wiedershine and Harlem Brady

815 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 1987

Keeping in mind that we are deciding the issue of the officials’ qualified immunity, and that our focus is on the question of whether Lappe’s rights were clearly established, we reject Lappe’s argument. … Loeffelholz violated Lappe’s clearly established federal constitutional rights and is not entitled to immunity.

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

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

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

Arledge v. Sherrill

738 So. 2d 1215 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1999

Additionally, a qualified immunity generally applies to most acts of government officials. 2 Id. In Harlow v. … [[Image here]] It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

Langley v. Coughlin

709 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, depends upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time. … established at the time, and consequently, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim of 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

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.

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.

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.

White v. Franklin

637 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 27, 1986

Qualified immunity is judged objectively by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Thus, if this court concludes that the individual defendants acting within their individual capacities violated such clearly established *616 constitutional or statutory rights, then qualified immunity does not bar this action

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.

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.

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).

Brown v. Newton County Sheriff's Office

273 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 7, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that Officers Shirley and Ramsey are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for shooting Ms. Brown. … There are three ways to show that a right was clearly established: (1) a “materially similar” case has already been decided; (2) a broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law clearly establishes

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.