Case law

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

James Wilburn Feagley v. Bill Waddill, Superintendent, Abilene State School

868 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

In denying this motion, the district court determined that a cause of action under section 1983 had been asserted and that none of the defendants had established entitlement to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court further refined the principles of qualified immunity by holding that the right allegedly violated by the defendant’s conduct “must have been ‘clearly

Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion

313 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the denial of the motion may be appealed immediately under the collateral-order doctrine because "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather … For instance, we may "review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right," but we may not "consider whether the district court

Gragg v. Kentucky Cabinet for Workforce Development

289 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2002

Garrett, 880 S.W.2d 530, 534 (Ky.1994)) To prevail against a defense of qualified immunity a plaintiff must first establish the constitutional right that she claims was violated by the defendants. Wilson v. … She must then demonstrate that this right was clearly established at the time of the infringement.

Jermosen v. Smith

945 F.2d 547 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Lip-pold argues that he and the other officers involved did not violate Jermosen’s “clearly established” rights and were thus entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. We agree.

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.

Billie Hovick v. Darci Patterson

37 F.4th 511 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

established.2 “We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … Our qualified-immunity inquiry “involv[es] two questions—whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.” Id.

Ford v. Donovan

891 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity “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 … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 n.12 (1984) (“officials may lose their immunity by violating ‘clearly established statutory . . . rights.’”) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818).

Rivas v. Freeman

940 F.2d 1491 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 1991

In Harlow, the Supreme Court further stated that if the law regarding an individual's constitutional or statutory rights is clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail. … Harlow, at 819, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 20 The district court denied the deputies' claim to qualified immunity noting that their combined conduct violated Rivas's clearly established constitutional rights.

Hanse v. Phillips

276 Ga. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 2005

Supreme Court has held that “qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. at 124 (1). … And this “provides persuasive reasons for resolving the issue of... qualified immunity as early as possible in the legal proceedings.” Id.

Ramon Cortesluna v. Manuel Leon

979 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 27, 2020

Principles of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects individual officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless they violate “clearly established” rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012).

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORGAN. FOR WOMEN v. Cuomo

14 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1998

Although violation of state rules or regulations may inform the court's analysis of a qualified immunity defense, the defense may only be defeated by the court's determination that the official violated "clearly established … The court must look to Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent in evaluating whether the law relevant to the constitutional issues raised here is "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes. See Elder v.

Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa

678 F.3d 676 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

In 2007, the district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding their failure to disclose exculpatory evidence because any failure did not violate a right that was clearly established when the … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff[s], however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Rettele v. Los Angeles County

186 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 21, 2006

Having determined that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, if true, may establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to whether the law was clearly established, such that a reasonable officer would have known … to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

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.

Francis Brauner v. Shirley Coody

793 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2015

Denying qualified immunity implies both “that a certain course of conduct would . . . be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law” and “that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant … To determine that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity, the court must find that every reasonable officer would have understood that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Charfauros v. Board of Elections

5 N. Mar. I. 188 · Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands · Nov 27, 1998

The members of the Board of Elections, acting in their individual capacities, asserted qualified immunity. 7 The court held that “the procedure for resolving voter challenges was not ‘clearly established’ at the time the … immunity because the process for disqualifying voters was not sufficiently or clearly established at the time the hearings were held.

Randy James Barber, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Robert Barber, Deceased v. City of Salem, Ohio

953 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 1992

Because there was no clearly established right to a suicide prevention facility for pretrial detainees, the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … In reaching our decision regarding the police officers’ qualified immunity in Da-nese, we considered the law clearly established at the time of the decedent’s suicide.

BARLOW EX REL. MONCEBAIZ v. Owens

400 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2005

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right and because Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly-established … Conclusions Because Defendants’ actions in investigating the neighbor’s report, detaining Moncebaiz, and then arresting him were not unreasonable in light of clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Bradway v. Gonzales

26 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Piesco, 12 F.3d at 343 . 27 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.