Case law

McGrath v. Tavares

757 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity In any event, even if a constitutional violation was established, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly … does not need to establish the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Victoria v. City of San Diego

326 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

In suits under § 1983, qualified immunity "shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … In general, 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 rights of which a reasonable

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.

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc.

327 S.C. 400 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 9, 1997

Some courts have focused on the nature of the land itself and have established prerequisites to immunity, namely that the land qualifying for protection is: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for the type of activities … The plain language of our recreational use statute’s provisions clearly protects the Respondents because it grants immunity to “landowners.” 7 S.C.Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70; see also T.W.

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Vincson Herren and Woody Eugene Herren v. E.J. Bowyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Georgia

850 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

Public officials performing discretionary functions 5 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a grant of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” 841 F.2d at 1565 ; accord Webb v.

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

Mosher Ex Rel. Estate of Mosher v. Nelson

589 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation." … Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Sheffield v. Pieroway

361 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Resil asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which plaintiff opposes. … Qualified Immunity Pieroway contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

State v. Jones

416 S.C. 283 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 18, 2016

In a pretrial motion, Jones asserted immunity from prosecution under the "Protection of Persons and Property Act" (the Act).1 Following a hearing, the circuit court judge granted the motion, finding Jones established by … Conclusion We conclude the circuit court judge properly granted Jones immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 16-11-440(C) because Jones's residence qualified as "another place" where she had the right to be

Powell v. Basham

921 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

On the First Amendment claim, defendants argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Powell’s First Amendment right to criticize the promotion system and practices had not been clearly established … Qualified immunity shields a public official from personal liability for constitutional violations “if his conduct was objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law.” Darnell v.

Alexander v. City of Bessemer

142 So. 3d 543 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 18, 2013

to so-called “qualified immunity” under federal law. … It is only “when an official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” that ‘the official is not protected by qualified immunity.’ Id.