Case law

Stanley v. Barone

210 Conn. App. 239 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 25, 2022

clearly established constitu- tional right. … Thus, in order to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity in the present case, the plaintiff was required to allege facts that would establish that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Mitchell v. Luckenbill

680 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

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.

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

Price v. Dixon

961 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 1997

Qualified immunity operates to release government officials from suit if it cannot be shown that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person in their position would have … Without expressly deciding this issue, however, the court finds that qualified immunity is appropriate based on the “clearly established law” analysis.

Mayronne v. Vaught

94 La.App. 4 Cir. 2140 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their Rconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity does not act as an absolute bar, but rather as a threshold over which a plaintiff must pass to continue litigation.

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

856 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

The basis for their claim of immunity was that Stoneking did not have a clearly established right to be free from the sexual abuse of Wright, a member of the school’s staff, that they were under no clearly established duty … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles government officials performing discretionary functions to immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Arias v. Amador

61 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2014

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 … . *971 The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

K.D. ex rel. Duncan v. White Plains School District

921 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2013

Qualified Immunity Since Defendants have asserted a qualified immunity defense based on the absence of a clearly established right, the Court begins, not with an analysis of whether KD.’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … Legal Standard “Qualified immunity was created to shield government officials from civil liability for the performance of discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v.

Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

Babcock v. State

116 Wash. 2d 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Lack of malice is necessary but not sufficient to establish qualified i immunity under Guffey . Caseworkers cannot claim even a qualified immunity when they fail to follow statutory procedures. … We do not think that ex parte orders can establish quasi-judicial immunity for those carrying them out. Ex parte orders do not offer sufficient procedural protections to warrant the establishment of absolute immunity.

Currier Ex Rel. Estate of Juarez v. Doran

23 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 21, 1998

In addition, however, Gonzales and Robbins maintain they violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Discussion A. … When a qualified immunity defense is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997).

Beck v. Wilson

377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

York v. Purkey

14 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

Therefore, in deciding whether law was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. Id. In McCloud v. … The Court wrote: If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Sweatt v. Blackman Township Officer Brent Doxtader

986 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 11, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … excessive force. 4 The Court finds that this right was clearly established.

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Skinner v. Chapman

680 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 28, 2010

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a deprivation exists, qualified immunity is appropriate where:(l) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

375 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 28, 2005

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … It is the plaintiffs burden to establish that a law is clearly established. Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v.

Sheets v. Butera

389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right