Case law

Soares v. State of Connecticut

8 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 2, 1993

Accordingly, Konow is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. II. … that their conduct was necessarily "objectively reasonable," they can prevail on their qualified immunity defense if they can show that the rights plaintiff claims to have been violated were not "clearly established."

Papineau v. Parmley

465 F.3d 46 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 4, 2006

Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … Id. at 321 , 71 S.Ct. 303 . 1) Plaintiffs’ Free Speech Rights Were Clearly Established.

Robert W. Clark v. Joseph G. Brown

861 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 1988

Indeed it is not clearly established under current law. … They are not a bar to qualified immunity. Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello

165 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 28, 1999

The court found that the acts alleged in count one, if proven, would violate "clearly established" law and that the qualified immunity defense was therefore unavailable. … Because the law was clearly established at the time the Defendants allegedly withdrew the advertising, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Alexander v. Eeds

392 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2004

Without an established right, qualified immunity is granted. Id. … Therefore, they have not successfully alleged a violation of an established right and qualified immunity was properly granted.

Tellier v. Fields

280 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Home supports the need to address the constitutional question when a court finds that qualified immunity does not exist because the right asserted is clearly established.

Hall v. Griego

896 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 10, 1995

Qualified immunity shields defendants from pecuniary liability unless they can be said to have violated "`clearly established' constitutional or statutory norms." Werner, 49 F.3d at 1481 (citing Anderson v. … Supreme Court addressed the issue of what is clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity, stating: the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been `clearly established' in a more particularized

Quinlan v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 27, 2024

. § 1983 because the officers should have done more to find and notify him about the impoundment would be 15 precluded by qualified immunity jurisprudence. See Hope v. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the 16 constitutional right allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the events at

Willie J. Street v. Terry Parham, Ken Snider, and Mike Hill, Sheriff of Sedgwick County, Kansas

929 F.2d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 25, 1991

Instruction No. 21: On August 31, 1985, the law as set forth in Instruction No. 18 was clearly established. … If the law was clearly established, a claim to immunity should ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Sharon Courson v. Quinn A. McMillian Individually and as Sheriff of Walton County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Jim Roy

939 F.2d 1479 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

(“To defeat a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that ‘the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly … Rich recognizes two situations where qualified immunity is accorded to government officials: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established, see, e.g., Clark v.

Baldwin v. Placer County

405 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2005

The County moved for summary judgment on the ground of the qualified immunity of the officers. … Qualified immunity was rightly denied. 16 Conspiracy.

Carol Walker v. Brian Coffey

905 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 20, 2018

The District Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Walker did not have a clearly established right to privacy in the content of her work emails. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” 8 Qualified

Fisher v. Kealoha

869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Apr 19, 2012

Qualified Immunity for Individual Capacity Claims Kealoha also asserts that he is shielded from individual liability based upon qualified immunity. … violation, and ... whether or not the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Denise Green v. City & County of San Francisco

751 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 2014

“The doctrine of 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 … In Washington, we denied qualified immunity on a similar set of facts, finding: at the time of [the suspects’] detentions the law was clearly established that, when making a Terry stop, officers may

Lindsay v. Bogle

92 F. App'x 165 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 969 (6th Cir.2002), the assertion of a qualified-immunity defense (even a contingent qualified-immunity defense) indicates that the defendants were aware they could be held personally hable. … Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 594 (6th Cir.2003) (noting that defendant had not moved for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity).

Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale

7 F.3d 1552 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

Defendants are, at least, entitled to qualified immunity because no facts before us show defendants violated clearly established law. See Lindsey v. … Hurley is entitled to qualified immunity because Hurley’s acts, as established by the record before us, violated no clearly established law. C.

Lonegan v. Hasty

436 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 22, 2006

Accordingly, Hasty’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. 5 See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Qualiñed Immunity To determine whether Hasty is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, the court must now consider whether plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time

Waltman v. Payne

535 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 10, 2008

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”1 Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”2 Once a government … defense, the plaintiff must show: (1) that he has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and (2) that the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at

Faghri v. University of Connecticut

621 F.3d 92 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 17, 2010

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, contending that, without regard to any dispute as to facts, their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of Plaintiff … Finally, it refused summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity noting that “[h]is rights to make the protected statements and to retain his property interest are clearly established because the law governing them

Leroy Edward Green v. Camilla Maraio and Angelo J. Ingrassia

722 F.2d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 7, 1983

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 419 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. at 989 n. 13. … Thus, the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required as a predicate to a finding of qualified immunity and, consequently, there is no reason to require an answer, a hearing or a trial. See Harlow v.