Case law

John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Holeman v. City of New London

330 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Since a constitutional violation could be shown, the court must proceed to the qualified immunity inquiry and ask whether the right violated was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

156 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. The defense of qualified immunity is available to federal officials acting in the scope of their employment. … Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation.

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.

Mattingly v. Mitchell

425 S.W.3d 85 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 21, 2013

Although Prater involved a claim of absolute immunity, the rule is logically extended to a claim of qualified official immunity. … Our Supreme Court held teachers assigned to supervise a school-sponsored baseball practice were not entitled to qualified official immunity because the school had an established rule that children were required to wear batting

Trugreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott

512 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2007

Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit alleging RICO claim because rights that served as basis of claim were not clearly established … Although it is well settled that qualified immunity is not analyzed in identical terms as are the merits of Scott’s RICO claim, in these circumstances' — where Duebner is clearly entitled to summary judgment and has already

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Crandel v. Hastings

75 F.4th 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Again, when defendants assert qualified immunity, “a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n v. Forst

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants’ qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

Westmoreland v. Sutherland

718 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 2010

Qualified immunity cases, however, are not precisely on point. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight

781 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2015

Municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity, but a municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” … At a minimum, the act of retaining the guns did not violate clearly established law.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

immunity, “our case law does not clearly establish a right to videotape police officers performing their official duties.” … Affirming the district court and rejecting officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the court of appeals held qualified immunity did not apply to officers because it was clearly established, "gathering information about government

Robinson v. York

566 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 27, 2009

Defendants appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. … not affect whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Hurt v. United States

914 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 14, 1996

established" as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. … We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected ‘liberty’ interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.

Ricardo Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

826 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2016

“In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case … of which was clearly unreasonable.”

Broussard v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

45 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 5, 2014

The defendants’ motions for sanctions and the alternative motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity are DEFERRED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PATRICK J. HANNA, United States Magistrate Judge. … The Punitive Damages Claims It has been thirty-three years since the Supreme Court clearly stated: “we hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” City of Newport v.

Timmins v. Toto

91 F. App'x 165 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 5, 2004

To establish qualified immunity in § 1983 claims, a defendant must show “either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … Whatever rule Walsh established, that rule was not clearly established at the time of the chase. Toto is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Abromaitis, 294 F.3d at 360 .

Jordan Jones v. George Solomon

90 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

“To overcome an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the … Under binding case law, however, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Mason v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

774 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2011

entitled to qualified immunity because their liability had not been “clearly established.” 160 The Individual Defendants provide no First Circuit case law to support the application of qualified immunity here. 161 The Individual … See, e.g., Darby, 287 F.3d at 681 (explaining that the qualified immunity defense does not apply because the FMLA creates "clearly established statutory rights”).

Vanderklok v. United States

140 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2015

Even if the Individual Officers lacked probable cause to arrest Vanderklok, they would be protected by qualified immunity because they did not violate a right that was “clearly established.” … This is not so clearly established as to override the Individual Officers’ qualified immunity.