Case law

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2019

Instead, “[i]n the context of a qualified immunity defense on an unlawful search or arrest claim, we ascertain whether a defendant violated clearly established law by asking whether there was ‘arguable probable cause’ … Even if Plaintiff could get past the first prong of qualified immunity by establishing a constitutional violation, he would still lose on the second prong.

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Bohn v. Waddell

164 Ariz. 74 · Arizona Tax Court · Apr 6, 1990

immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." … Defendants have pled the defense of a qualified immunity.

Leonard Foster v. Dustin Patrick

806 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 2015

Patrick Page 4 precluded an award of qualified immunity. Patrick filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Although it is true that the right must be clearly established in a “‘particularized’ sense,” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier v.

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

John S. Pleasant v. Larry Lovell, Larry Hyatt, Vernon Pixley, Kenneth Batson and Tim Fortune

876 F.2d 787 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 6, 1989

Defendant Fortune has qualified immunity for his technical consensual monitoring assistance; no clearly established first or fourth amendment right was violated. … After applying clearly established fourth amendment principles, we reject the contention that these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

O'Ferrell v. United States

998 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 24, 1998

J. pp. 4-S (entire discussion of qualified immun.) That proposition is that it has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Malley v. … The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant.

Secot v. City of Sterling Heights

985 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 10, 1997

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Frohm is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. As held by the Sixth Circuit in Adams , the right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is a clearly established right.

Martel, et al. v. Town of Chichester, et al.

2013 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity - Adinolfo “‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right, Adinolfo is entitled to qualified immunity. 14  The Martels contend, nevertheless, that a reasonable police

Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier

861 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 1988

or, alternatively, qualified immunity. … However, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, because we hold that the law did not clearly establish that the second ordinance was unconstitutional at the time it was enacted.

Hannah Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary

989 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brickey v. … needing to consider the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Tyson v. Willauer

289 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 23, 2003

However, qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, in support of their qualified immunity defense, Defendants assert that no clearly established right was violated and that Defendants’ entry into Plaintiffs’ residence to execute a valid arrest warrant was lawful and

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Dull v. WEST MANCHESTER TP. POLICE DEPT.

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

The court may *749 eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional *752 rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

Parrish v. City of Wilmington

3 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2014

Stanforth further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id.). … Riley further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because in his view the law is not clearly established as to what process is due when an employee resigns (Id.).

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Caldarola v. Calabrese

298 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

Qualified Immunity A. 11 "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.'" Saucier v. … If the law was clearly established that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.