Case law

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

Davis v. City of Aurora Ex Rel. Oates

705 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 31, 2010

In considering what law is clearly established, factual novelty alone does not automatically provide a state official with the protections of qualified immunity. … case law to clearly establish the violation.”

Medeiros v. Merced County Sheriff Deputy Clark

713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2010

Qualified immunity serves to shield 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 … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to *1063 qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1005-1007. See also Bretz v.

George v. Beaver County

32 F.4th 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

In the qualified-immunity context, “[a] clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Cummings v. … Thus, Rose’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the County, Noel, and Rose.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

213 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 30, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … After finding that the law governing the Saucier’s conduct was clearly established, the Ninth Circuit proceeded to consider whether the officer’s conduct was reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Richard Leo Deorle v. Greg Rutherford, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Mick Grey, Butte County Sheriff County of Butte

272 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2001

immunity: notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent, the law may be, as it was here, clearly established. … It does not matter that no case of this court directly addresses the use of such weapons; we have held that ‘[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

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.

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.

Thornton v. City of Macon

132 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. … It is clearly established that the use of excessive force in carrying out an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Graham v.

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).

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

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.

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.

Timmons v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

887 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1995

He argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this portion of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim. Good faith or qualified immunity is an affirmative defense in actions under § 1983. Harlow v. … Even where a right has been clearly established, a defendant is immune from liability if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate *581 that right. Anderson v.

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?

Richardson v. U.S. Department of Interior

740 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Qualified immunity insulates officials from personal liability when their alleged tortious conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … Violations of “Clearly Established” Right In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly

Gagne v. DeMarco

281 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 26, 2003

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court will address each of these arguments below after a general discussion of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Zackary Stewart v. Karl Wagner

836 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

On this record, we conclude it was error to deny Prosecutor Selby qualified immunity on this claim because Stewart failed to present sufficient evidence that Wagner and Selby violated “clearly established [Fourth Amendment … If the motion was made and denied, that would at least establish there was no clearly established violation of the Sixth Amendment.

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

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he