Case law

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

Magrum v. Meinke

332 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The officer, however, was still entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not “say that it was clearly established as of February 20, 2001, that a police officer may not detain an individual exiting a house reportedly

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,...

Rodriguez v. Laredo Independent School District

82 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2000

Superintendent Cruz CV Qualified Immunity .In Harlow v. … ’s actions did not violate ... clearly established First Amendment rights.”).

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.

Gean v. Hattaway

330 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2003

We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred. … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson v.

Rockwood v. Shoen

145 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Courts generally use a two-step analysis to address the potential applicability of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

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 .

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

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.

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Battiste v. Rojeski

257 F. Supp. 2d 957 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 12, 2003

To determine the issue of qualified immunity, I must determine first, whether the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right; and if so, whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. … Even if a right is clearly established, defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were reasonable. See Anderson v.

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).

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.

Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex.

564 F.3d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In order to evaluate the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right.

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.

Brenda Albert v. City of Wheeling

238 W. Va. 129 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition … To decide otherwise would risk further erosion of “well-established common law and statutory immunities which are vital to the proper functioning] of government.”