Case law

Pasqualone v. Gately

422 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 5, 1996

As the Supreme Court stated in *403 Anderson, supra at 639 , “[pjlaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by … Although we have no doubt that Gately violated Pasqualone’s clearly established constitutional rights, we must acknowledge that this case exposes a gap in our law.

Williams v. Morahan

539 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1033 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). Cf.

Navorro-Monzo v. Hughes

297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989

Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

Heller's assistant) contend that as government contractors that did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and liability under section 1983. 7 Generally, the key question to be answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts.

Gordon v. Sadasivan

144 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1985

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendant knew of should have known. … We also find that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Poteet v. Sullivan

218 S.W.3d 780 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Were the constitutional rights violated by Officers Sullivan and Lucio clearly established?

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

Slingluff v. State

131 Haw. 239 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Therefore, their actions were not protected by a qualified immunity. … Paderes are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Circuit Court did not err when it denied their motion for summary judgment. B.

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Hall v. Trochessett

105 F.4th 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … We will now determine whether there was a clearly established right.

Jackson v. Bush

448 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2006

Accordingly, only in cases where an official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” can he be denied immunity. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … R.Civ.P. 25(d), a qualified immunity defense primarily serves to immunize un-served defendants Ashcroft, Rove, and Libby.

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields Sanders from liability and the burden of having to go to trial unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

380 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 30, 2019

Clearly Established Right "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … Assuming this result will obtain-as the Court must at summary judgment-Pollard's warrantless entry violated Plaintiffs' clearly established rights. The Court, therefore, denies Pollard qualified immunity.

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

863 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … Second, the district court held that Santos and Cavazos were entitled to qualified immunity because how existing law applied to the facts was not clearly established.

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

Powell v. Barrett

376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

Woodard v. Mennella

861 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 25, 1994

disposing of claims barred by qualified immunity.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an official is liable for damages only where his or her conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Justin Schimandle v. DeKalb County Sheriff's Office

114 F.4th 648 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2024

A Qualified immunity requires the court to determine: (1) whether the record evidences the violation of a federal statu- tory or constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right violated was clearly established at … “There is no question that [Schimandle’s] constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.”

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a jury were to credit Plaintiff's testimony, then neither Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known, based on clearly established law, that applying force-tackling Plaintiff