Case law

Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.

763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

Margaret Cowan, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper v. Michael Breen, Town of North Branford, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellant

352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.

Ronald K. Drewitt v. Fred L. Pratt Pizza Hut of America, Inc., City of Norfolk, Party-In-Interest

999 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 1993

Accordingly, because no clearly established constitutional right was violated, the district court held that Officer Pratt was clearly entitled to qualified immunity on such claim. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established,” or that, though "clearly established,” (and violated), it was one that a

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

94 F.4th 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2024

Under the normal standards of qualified immunity, no “clearly established law” placed the officers on notice of Villarreal’s First Amendment right not to be arrested. … Even those who argue for some version of qualified immunity nevertheless disavow the clearly-established- law requirement. See, e.g., Scott Keller, Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law, 73 Stan. L.

Green v. Henley

727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989

immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.

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.”

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

36 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants also seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when, at the time the officer was acting, the right in question was not clearly established or, even if the right was established, it was not objectively reasonable for

SAN GERÓNIMO CARIBE PROJECT, INC. v. Vila

663 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-816 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)(citing Anderson v. … As aforementioned, when determining qualified immunity, the Court may choose to first assess whether the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiff was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Elmer J. Lappe v. Paul Loeffelholz, Dr. Wiedershine and Harlem Brady

815 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 1987

Keeping in mind that we are deciding the issue of the officials’ qualified immunity, and that our focus is on the question of whether Lappe’s rights were clearly established, we reject Lappe’s argument. … Loeffelholz violated Lappe’s clearly established federal constitutional rights and is not entitled to immunity.

Bloom v. Toliver

133 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 22, 2015

They are also entitled to qualified immunity because Bloom has not satisfied the “clearly established law” prong, as'required to defeat these defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Hammett does not argue the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Tunnell v. Office of Public Defender

583 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1984

If the law was not clearly established, the defendant will prevail on summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2739 , unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew … If, on the other hand, the applicable law was clearly established, then, as the Court noted in Harlow , it should have been known to “a reasonably competent public official,” and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily

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.

Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller

456 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1978

On the other hand, conduct falling within the investigative and administrative functions of these defendants is subject to a qualified immunity and they must establish their good faith in order to escape liability. … As such, he is entitled only to the qualified immunity of other executive officials, and he must establish his good faith to avoid liability. Again, this is an issue best resolved at trial.

Kathleen A. Walsh v. Cuyahoga County, and Terry Allan

424 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. … Ill Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Sparks v. Kim

701 So. 2d 1113 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1997

The immunity set forth in Hudson/Marshall is not absolute, but only qualified. … Panola County Bd. of Educ., 645 So.2d 883, 890-92 (Miss. 1994) (noting that Remedies Clause is not abrogated by immunities that were well established at time of Clause's adoption); Robinson v.

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

820 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

I consider here only the issue of qualified immunity. I. … Qualified immunity shields 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 known

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.

Naccarato v. Oliver

882 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 19, 1995

Further, even when the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct, an official is still entitled to immunity were it objectively reasonable for him to believe the conduct lawful. … If an officer kicked a handcuffed arrestee in the back, that act would violate a clearly established constitutional right and this Court would not grant immunity from liability for such conduct.

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Randall Fennell v. Matthew Gregory

414 F. App'x 32 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2011

violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established in light of the circumstances of this case. … established for qualified immunity purposes.