Case law

Rivas v. Martin

781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 18, 2011

Second, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any of Rivas’ clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.) … Thus, because the allegations state that defendants violated Rivas’ clearly established constitutional rights, defendants cannot be granted qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.

Usavage v. Port Authority

932 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force “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 … Accordingly, “[a] qualified immunity defense is established only if (1) the officers’ actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that their actions did

Sprouse v. Ryan

346 F. Supp. 3d 1347 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 7, 2017

Qualified immunity therefore turns on the second prong-whether the right at issue was clearly established such that Defendants would have known that their conduct was unlawful. See Saucier v. … Unpublished district court decisions "may inform our qualified immunity analysis," but "absent any published opinions on point or overwhelming obviousness of illegality[,]" a right is rarely clearly established.

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

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

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,

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

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

Jeffrey Swiecicki v. Jose Delgado

463 F.3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2006

The law of qualified immunity We will “review the denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity de novo because application of this doctrine is a question of law.” McCloud v. … Swiecicki’s First Amendment right to free speech was thus clearly established at the time of Delgado’s actions in question. We therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity awarded to Delgado on this issue. b.

Peterson v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota University System

240 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … In other words, the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

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

Harold Werkheiser v. Pocono Township

780 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 6, 2015

Because we conclude that the contours of the First Amendment right at issue were not clearly established, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim.1 … Appellants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding Werkheiser’s rights was not clearly established. The District Court rejected this argument as well.