Case 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.”

Lawson v. Gregg

140 F. Supp. 3d 873 · District Court, D. Alaska · Oct 20, 2015

could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.” 44 “Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make … The United ‘States Supreme Court has held that a court should “not ... define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” 53 “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Jackson v. Rapps

746 F. Supp. 934 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 13, 1990

The qualified immunity bar applies when the alleged conduct does not violate, under an objective standard of review, a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … The Court held that Mitchell was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that such wiretaps were unconstitutional. Id. at 2818.

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

Schiffbauer v. Schmidt

95 F. Supp. 3d 846 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 24, 2015

Furthermore, because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit “rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial,” Mitchell … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before *853 the commencement of discovery.”

Rasanen Ex Rel. Estate of Rasanen v. Brown

603 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2009

Here, Brown and Etherton seek summary judgment on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

Herman v. City of Tucson

197 Ariz. 430 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 23, 1999

In defense, the City asserted qualified immunity under the recreational use statute. … To conclusively establish recreational user status based solely on the City’s grant of permission to all persons to enter a park, the Hermans argue, would result in “a ‘blanket immunity’ that covers everyone in the world,

Michael A. Galvan v. Giles Garmon

710 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1983

Appellant appeals, claiming that appellees are protected only by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity, as redefined by the Supreme Court in Harlow , permits state officers to be subjected to suits only if the officials’ conduct clearly violated an established statutory or constitutional right of which a

Larry J. Leaf, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John P. Leaf, Deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf v. Ronald Shelnutt

400 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 18, 2005

of one ‘clearly established’ right .... ”); see also International Action Center v. … We note that, even if we had found that the Fourth Amendment forbade the search at issue here, Deputy Shelnutt still would be entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that such a sweep violates

Eric K. Brooks v. D Miller

78 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2023

He argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Brooks’s con- stitutional rights, and even assuming he did, any rights were not clearly established. … In sum, the “clearly established” part of the qualified-immunity in- quiry asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the USCA11 Case: 21-10590 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2023 Page: 22 of

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Ibarra

685 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 27, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that its federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Madiwale v. Savaiko

117 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1997

Lanier, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997).1 The qualified immunity inquiry, then, must establish first, whether the defendant government official was performing a discretionary function … Thus, we cannot say that Savaiko violated clearly established law by reporting Madiwale to the DPR, and she is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Watson v. Norris

729 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 7, 1989

of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. … The current test, as summarized by the Sixth Circuit, is this: if the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff must show a violation of the constitutional right or rights and “that these rights were so clearly

Vista McDuffie v. Hopper

982 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 23, 1997

The opinion does so by jumping directly to a discussion of whether the doctor had violated clearly established law, Id. at 721, assuming, without deciding, that qualified immunity necessarily follows § 1983 liability. … Again, however, the court does so by jumping straight to an analysis of clearly established law; it does not address the question whether private party doctors are entitled to claim qualified immunity at all.

Hodge v. Village of Southampton

838 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunsucker argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.

Cornelius v. La Croix

631 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 3, 1986

Qualified Immunity David La Croix asserts that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity from the damages awarded against him in this case. Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity as it now stands, the issue is whether the challenged conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Hynson v. City of Chester, Legal Department

864 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1988

This is the essence of the constitutional right which the plaintiffs must show was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation in order to negate the police officers' qualified immunity. B. … know, we first addressed the nature of the right claimed before determining whether it was clearly established at the time of the conduct. 26 The reference to clearly established rights in Harlow and Stoneking means more