Case law

Barber v. Guay

910 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 1995

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. … Second, if the right is clearly established, qualified immunity will only be denied if a reasonable official should have known that the challenged conduct violated that established right.

Thomas v. Collins

860 S.W.2d 500 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 1, 1993

To meet this burden, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … Reviewing appellant’s pleading under this standard, his allegations are sufficient to allege that Collins violated his clearly established eighth amendment rights.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Moran v. Clarke

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Id. 9 Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at

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

S.P. v. City of Takoma Park

134 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 15, 1998

Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense. … to qualified immunity.

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff[s'] clearly established right." … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Browne v. Robb

583 A.2d 949 · Supreme Court of Delaware · Nov 5, 1990

The State Tort Claims Act grants, in part, general qualified immunity to certain state officials and employees. 10 Del.C. § 4001. … We have already recognized that a public defender is protected by qualified immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. See Vick v.

Gordon v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas

168 F. Supp. 3d 1148 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 10, 2016

The individual defendants 7 contend they are enti- *1156 tied to qualified immunity from Gordon’s § 1983 and § 1985 claims 8 because the conduct alleged fails to state a violation of a clearly established federal right of … But the former UALR employees — Norwood and Peterson— are also entitled to qualified immunity if Gordon fails to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Allen L. Fludd v. United States Secret Service Maurice Daugherty

771 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Austin v. Redford Township Police Department

859 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2011

The qualified immunity objections The defendants’ fourth objection does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that the law concerning the use of Tasers on subdued suspects is clearly established. … The fact that defendant Pauli may have violated a clearly established constitutional right necessarily means that defendant Pauli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

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.

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Adams v. May

903 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 19, 2012

qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information available to him and the law that was clearly established at the time of his actions. … May is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his actions of applying pepper spray. 2.

Vanterpool v. Cuccinelli

998 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2014

To grant a defendant qualified immunity a court must find that the defendant’s conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … established in the Fourth Circuit at all times relevant to this action, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 6 C.

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.