Case law

McLain v. Milligan

847 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The relevant inquiry for assessing whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed” that Defendant’s actions were lawful “in light of clearly established law and the … This Court has delineated a two-step analysis for assessing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the court must consider the more general question of whether the law establishing the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly

Stevenson v. Owens State Community College

562 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 2008

The key inquiry in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … As such, this Court finds that the Individual Defendants are protected by qualified immunity. IV.

Emerson v. Borland

927 S.W.2d 709 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 18, 1996

(ii) Qualified immunity. … To preclude immunity from suit, the clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based and must be established at the time of the violation. Elder v.

Solis v. Prince George's County

153 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity under 12 U.S.C. § 1983 Under § 1983, state officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the Court finds that Officer Ruffin has not established an entitlement to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim. b.

Norris v. Engles

494 F.3d 634 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2007

“If so, then we determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Id. “If either question is answered in the negative, the public official is entitled to qualified immunity.” … a constitutional violation, we need not consider whether her constitutional right to due process was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Allan F. Archer, Jr. v. Gilbert Sanchez

933 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

Anderson then guides our inquiry into whether qualified immunity shields Mr. … While the court must decide whether the law in question was clearly established, Meade v.

Sonoda v. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of § 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mutter v. Town of Salem

945 F. Supp. 402 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity analysis in this circuit is two-pronged: (1) “the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff [must be] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” and (2) “a reasonable official situated

Bell v. Dawson

144 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2001

As discussed above, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from *461 liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Lowery v. County of Riley

522 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 14, 2008

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so, the court must then determine whether the right asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id.

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

Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness’s death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

DeMayo v. Nugent

517 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2008

grounds of qualified immunity. … Law enforcement officers may not violate constitutional rights, then expect qualified immunity when a court refuses to craft an unprecedented exception to a clearly established rule of law.

Foster v. McGrail

844 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 25, 1994

In addition, even if plaintiff succeeded in proving a prima facie claim for a state constitutional violation, he failed to overcome defendant’s qualified immunity as established *25 under state law. … is claiming “have violated a right under Federal or State constitutional or statutory law that was ‘clearly established’ at the time.”

Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.

Kellough v. Bertrand

22 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 25, 1998

Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police. … Plaintiffs Claim of Unlawful Arrest is not Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992).

Paul Frederick Lenea, Cross-Appellant v. Michael P. Lane, Cross-Appellees

882 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1989

clearly established in 1983. … that right was “clearly established” by 1983.

Meyers v. Redwood City

400 F.3d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2005

Defendants claim that they did not violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and, in the alternative, that those rights were not clearly established and Defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … B 29 Even if we thought that the officers crossed a line established by Harris , the officers are surely entitled to qualified immunity because they could not have known that they were violating the Plaintiffs'"clearly established

Ryle Edward Springmen v. Alexandra Williams

122 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

Furthermore, qualified immunity lies unless there has been a clear violation of well established constitutional law. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Franz v. Lytle

791 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 15, 1992

Qualified immunity claims are governed by the objective albeit fact-intensive “clearly established law” standard enunciated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … ‘clearly established’ law.”