Case law

Barbosa v. Conlon

962 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 10, 2013

Qualifíed Immunity — In General “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 … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009).

O'Ferrell v. United States

998 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 24, 1998

J. pp. 4-S (entire discussion of qualified immun.) That proposition is that it has been clearly established since the Supreme Court decided Malley v. … The Eleventh Circuit has noted, since the O’Ferrells’ ease began, that Franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant.

Rehberg v. Paulk

611 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

Masonoff v. DuBois

336 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 17, 2004

To determine whether the defendants here are entitled to the shield of qualified immunity, I must inquire: “(1) whether the facts as alleged make out a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established … Was the right clearly established?

Charlene Bush, Wife John Bush, Husband v. David Rauch D. Brad Campbell, Individually and Officially

38 F.3d 842 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are protected from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In the instant case, Campbell is at the least entitled to qualified immunity. The Bushes have not affirmatively articulated, nor does the record indicate, any clearly established right allegedly violated by Campbell.

Lorenzo Fernandez v. Gregorio Perez

937 F.2d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1991

Fernandez contends the law at the time of the arrest was clearly-established that probable cause to arrest him was lacking. … Thus, Officer Perez acted reasonably in arresting and detaining him and enjoys qualified immunity for the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff.

Stadt v. University of Rochester

921 F. Supp. 1023 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 15, 1996

The Defendant is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Ordinarily, government officials sued in their individual capacities are' entitled to qualified immunity from suit for damages so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights

D'Aoust v. Diamond

197 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Qualified Immunity Having established that appellees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, we now come to the heart of the matter on appeal: whether the facts alleged and their permissible inferences would … “qualified” immunity.

Thompson v. City of Indianapolis

208 F. Supp. 3d 968 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2016

Clearly Established Right The Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights must also be clearly established. … and Zotz were so clearly excessive to defeat the claim for qualified immunity.

Estate of Bryant by Bryant v. Buchanan

883 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Police officers who use force in making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Were the Constitutional Standards Clearly Established? Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right. Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176.

Bennett v. Murphy

274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Caldarola v. Calabrese

298 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

Qualified Immunity A. 11 "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.'" Saucier v. … If the law was clearly established that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

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.”

Madden v. Regional University System

73 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 24, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Tucker v. City Of Richmond

388 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Assuming that "a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

Robert Shawn Treff v. Kerry Galetka, Individually and as the Mailroom Supervisor at the Utah State Prison

74 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Galetka was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that prisoners had a First Amendment right to have their outgoing mail processed for delivery by the United States Postal Service, absent … Galetka’s qualified immunity defense, we first conclude that a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts is clearly established. Nordgren v.

Hutton v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Norfolk

45 Mass. App. Ct. 304 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Aug 13, 1998

“clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Hutton’s rights were not clearly established, and the defendants, therefore, enjoy immunity from suit under the § 1983 claim and under the common law false imprisonment claim. 6 The defendants’ motions for summary judgment