Case law

Moore v. Dormin

252 A.D.2d 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 16, 1998

As for qualified privilege, the plaintiff clearly did not raise a triable issue as to the defendant’s motivation, under either the constitutional or the common-law definition of malice. … Defendant raised the bar of absolute and qualified immunity based on his capacity as a prosecutor and the official context of the statements, arguing that the communication was made by one law-enforcement official to another

Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under Topolnicki's direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … We need not reach the question of whether defendant Topolnicki was entitled to summary judgment on the defense of prosecutorial immunity for all of his actions, because the record clearly reflects his entitlement to qualified

Castillo v. City of Weslaco

388 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2004

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established federal law, the district court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and scheduled the case for … II Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were ‘objectively reasonable’ with reference to ‘clearly established law’ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v.

Ryle Edward Springmen v. Alexandra Williams

122 F.3d 211 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

Furthermore, qualified immunity lies unless there has been a clear violation of well established constitutional law. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Bradway v. Gonzales

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

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 rights of which … As noted above, the Supreme Court had not clearly established inadvertence as a necessary element of a lawful plain view seizure.

Facey v. Dickhaut

91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

Mink v. Knox

566 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 12, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Elder v. … Whether the application of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to the Colorado criminal libel statute was clearly established under the circumstances of this case The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires

Fera v. City of Albany

568 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … violated were not clearly established.”

Perez v. County of Westchester

83 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages stemming from their performance of discretionary official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Indeed, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Majdalani v. Auburn University (CONSENT)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 26, 2024

prong of qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity” by establishing that the Defendant violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation).

Ty Shanaberg v. Licking Cty., Ohio

936 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 23, 2019

To overcome that immunity and make it to a jury, Shanaberg must show that (1) Stetson violated a constitutional right and (2) the violated right was clearly established when Stetson acted. Pearson v. … But I would grant qualified immunity for a different reason: it is not clearly established, in the context of this case, what level of verbal noncompliance, or “verbal belligerence,” justifies a taser’s use.

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.

252 Conn. 623 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 4, 2000

Peters, Jr., P.C., 1 to strike the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. … This appeal followed. 3 “In an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to strike, we operate in accordance with well established rules.

Derrell E. Upton v. Bernie C. Thompson, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Kankakee County, Jack L. Thulen v. Marvin Bausman, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Carroll County, Illinois

930 F.2d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 22, 1991

The district court concluded such rights were clearly established and denied the Sheriff's motion for summary judgment. Sheriff Thompson appeals the denial of qualified immunity. 8 II. … established in 1986 the sheriffs in these cases are protected by qualified immunity.

Eichler v. Sherbin

283 F. App'x 528 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2008

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 1 and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration of whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id.

Hyburnia Husband v. Charles Bryan and Larry Saurage

946 F.2d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 1991

Violation of Clearly Established Law “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when a reasonable officer could have believed that the challenged conduct did not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Megan Winfrey v. Keith Pikett

872 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

He contends that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because the scent lineups did not violate Megan’s clearly established constitutional rights for two reasons. … violated clearly established law.”

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.