Case law

Torrez v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021

and qualified immunity is appropriate). … July 22, 2021), the Court engaged in an extremely thorough examination of precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ultimately finding

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?

Samander v. Flemmig

20 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 2, 1998

Qualified Immunity A party is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if the court finds that the rights asserted by the plaintiff were not clearly established or: no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence … “The right to be free of excessive force is clearly established. That there are constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force during the course of an arrest is also clearly established.” Salim v.

Stidham v. Texas Commission on Private Security

418 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2005

Because we find that the defendants deprived Stidham of his clearly established rights in an objectively unreasonable manner, we vacate the district court’s grant of qualified immunity and remand the … are persuaded that, for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity, Stidham has properly demonstrated the violation of a clearly established right by showing that the defendants deprived him of his

Kinney v. Weaver

301 F.3d 253 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

Not long after Harlow , the Court refined the qualified-immunity standard by defining “clearly established” in a way that encompasses this “objective reasonableness” inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified … The doctrine of qualified immunity assumes that reasonably competent officials know clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne

76 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 1999

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Further, even if the plaintiffs rights were clearly established, a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged act it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions

Moore v. Hartman

644 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

May v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.

Garcia v. Does

764 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … Defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Vincent v. Yelick, 718 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir.2013).

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

Anthony Palmer v. Paul Richards, Ronald Goss

364 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 2004

established, we conclude that the district court (Baer, J.) properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It was, of course, Richards’s burden at summary judgment to show the nonexistence of a clearly established right and his entitlement to qualified immunity. Tellier, 280 F.3d at 84 .

Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council

467 N.W.2d 826 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 9, 1991

Qualified privileges do not act as an immunity from suit, but rather as an immunity from liability for damages. … These issues clearly do not involve immunity and should not be reviewed in this procedural posture.

Lunini v. Grayeb

395 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

Appellants now appeal that ruling on the narrow question whether Lunini's equal protection rights were indeed "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time of the alleged incident. I. … The appellants' appeal now comes before this Court, presenting a single narrow legal issue: whether the district court erred in ruling that Lunini's equal protection rights were "clearly established" for qualified immunity

Doss v. Gilkey

649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.

Gale v. Storti

608 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly … “Unless 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.

Kenneth B. Krohn v. United States of America

742 F.2d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1984

Further, we are cognizant that qualified immunity differs from absolute immunity in that it is not so readily decided by motion; obviously, on some occasions officials possessing only qualified immunity must stand trial. … Briscoe established an absolute immunity from section 1983 suit for a police officer/witness.

Nero v. Mosby

233 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2017

The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. Graham v. … That is, the right must have been clearly established at the time of events at issue. See Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). See discussion of qualified immunity below. .

Brian Ulrich v. Pope County

715 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … A police officer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the time of

Ryan Steinhoff v. Matthew Malovrh

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2026

The district court further concluded that Detective Kowalczyk was entitled to qualified immunity because Steinhoff did not identify clearly established law “prohibiting the use of a takedown under the dynamic cir- cumstances … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, a constitutional right is clearly established if existing prece- dent “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v.

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.