Case law

Ways v. City of Lincoln

909 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 13, 1995

Because this inquiry is fact intensive, “ ‘the asserted First Amendment right’ can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.” Id. (quoting Buzek v. … by definition be “clearly established.”

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

Greffey v. State of Ala. Dept. of Corrections

996 F. Supp. 1368 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates governmental officials in their individual capacities from civil lawsuits, so long as the challenged discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory … were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions____The words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedi *1386

Frye v. Hodges

839 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 30, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff in a § 1983 case must show that the defendant’s action deprived the plaintiff of a protected constitutional right and that the right was so clearly established at the

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough

98 F. Supp. 3d 697 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2015

For a qualified immunity analysis, therefore, the court must examine: 1) whether the officials violated a constitutional right and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wright v. … Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Yorzinski v. Imbert

39 F. Supp. 3d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 7, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil damages liability as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity doctrine involves a two-step analysis: a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

Joseph Williams v. City of Sparks

112 F.4th 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … A municipality is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. See id.

Monroe v. Gould

372 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was 'clearly established'; and (3) even if the right was 'clearly

Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled- to qualified immunity because “their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

Powell v. Fugate

364 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold, requiring assessment of "(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was 'clearly established

Haley v. City of Boston

657 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 19, 2011

If "it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established," a court may grant the requested immunity without undertaking the "essentially academic exercise" of ascertaining whether … The upshot, then, is that, by 1972, the relevant right was clearly established.

McRae v. Tena

914 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 25, 1996

Qualified Immunity The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that the defense of qualified immunity is available to police officers in excessive force cases. See, e.g., Scott v. … The Supreme Court eschewed generalizing of the “clearly established right” factor.

Thomas Richard Brown v. Frank D'Amico

35 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1994

Qualified immunity shields arresting officers from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We hold that D’Amico is entitled to qualified immunity because this right was not clearly established in December 1986 when he applied for an arrest warrant (nor indeed is it clearly established even now).

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Bellotte v. Edwards

629 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2011

Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 743 (4th Cir.2003), we affirm the district court’s holding that this no-knock entry violated the Bellottes’ clearly established constitutional rights and does not warrant an award of qualified immunity … Because we have jurisdiction over the denial of a claim for qualified immunity on summary judgment only “to the extent that the official maintains that the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law,” Winfield

Bouggess v. Mattingly

426 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 31, 2006

Qualified immunity must be granted if the plaintiff cannot establish each of these elements ... … Clearly Established Right?

Belcher v. Paine

136 N.H. 137 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Aug 27, 1992

Accordingly, the Court will, in considering the absolute immunity issue, take the well-pleaded facts of the Writ as established. … The decision to indict, even when based on an incomplete investigation, is clearly within the scope of absolute immunity.

Kerns v. Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo County

707 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 12, 2010

They argued that, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they were still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established … Wilkie that the plaintiff had a clearly established Fifth-Amendment right to exclude others from his property, so qualified immunity was inappropriate for retaliation for the exercise of that clearly established right.

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.