Case law

Lamonte Jackson-Gibson v. Reginald Beasley

118 F.4th 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 15, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.”

de Veloz v. Miami-Dade County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1222 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 8, 2017

Once a qualified immunity defense has been asserted, unless Plaintiffs’ “allegations state a claim of violation1 of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement … Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

George Zilich v. Thomas Longo David Mack Nancy Marincic Rose Marie Lovano Joseph Suster Michael Abella and Wilhelm Spiegelberg

34 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

We conclude that the resolution and ordinance are not a bill of attainder and that their passage did not violate plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights; therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … We also agree with the findings of the district court that Zifich's First Amendment right of free speech was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

Mucci v. Town of North Providence ex rel. Vallee

815 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Officer defendants are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as to these claims.

Nagy v. Mone, et al.

2007 DNH 143 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 28, 2007

If plaintiff does allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, I examine the next two steps in the qualified immunity analysis, asking whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … Thus, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at step two. C. Step Three: Would a Reasonable Officer Have Understood That His Conduct Violated Clearly Established Constitutional Rights?

Sharnick v. D'Archangelo

935 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 22, 2013

reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … If the law was “clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily ... fail[s], since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

Tiscareno v. Anderson

639 F.3d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

Because such an obligation was not clearly established, we conclude that Anderson was entitled to qualified immunity. … Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.

Johnson v. Williams

584 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

In this case, however, even if the law on anonymous stops had been clearly established, the officers would still be entitled to *105 immunity because the uncontroverted evidence shows that they did not know the tip was anonymous … Qualified Immunity From Excessive Force Claim The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs claim of *106 excessive force.

Reed v. Iranon

940 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Sep 13, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v.

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not " 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did not offer a rational explanation for basing his

Taylor v. Russell

181 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 24, 2001

In defense of Plaintiffs equal protection claims, Defendants assert qualified immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity. … “Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Katz v. Molic

727 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, turns upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time, a question of law which may be addressed by a motion … The Second Circuit held that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity because a reasonable state official would not have known that this conduct violated Neu’s “clearly established statutory

Navarro v. City of Riviera Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1353 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2016

qualified immunity should not apply because: (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … Even to the extent that facts exist capable of demonstrating a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and, thus, overcoming qualified immunity as to Sheriff Bradshaw in his individual capacity, amendment

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.

Vasquez v. Hernandez

844 S.W.2d 802 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Nov 12, 1992

Therefore, if the movant in the present case established the qualified immunity defense, the non-movants were required to controvert this by summary judgment evidence. … Moreover, a former Miami police chief’s stated opinion that the shooting could have been “avoided” does not address or refute the established elements of qualified immunity.

Smith v. Barber

195 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 22, 2002

right allegedly implicated was clearly established”). … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Hill ex rel. Estate of Hill v. Adkins

59 F. Supp. 3d 814 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Nov 18, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hill and, if a violation occurred, whether he transgressed a “clearly established right.” See Heflin v. Stewart County, Tenn., 958 F.2d 709, 717 (6th Cir.1992).

Williams v. Alabama State University

865 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 12, 1994

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be- within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.

722 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 2, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity from this lawsuit. Harlow v. … The plaintiff merely asserts that under Harlow , the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law or arrested

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.