Case law

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.

Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City

40 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 2014

“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id. … They do not indicate what exactly they believe is not “clearly established” in law such that qualified immunity is appropriate, but simply assert that the doctrine applies.

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

Doe v. Connecticut Department of Child and Youth Services

911 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

Neither circumstance defeats the defense of qualified immunity on the facts of this case. … The removal remained objectively reasonable when it was undertaken. 6 We agree with Judge Dorsey, for the reasons set forth in his opinion, that the undisputed facts establish the availability of the qualified immunity defense

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

Lumpkin v. Brehm

230 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2017

And “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity ... if he can establish that he had ‘arguable probable cause’ to arrest the plaintiff,” which requires the officer to demonstrate “either (a) it was objectively reasonable … And because Defendants have raised qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they must demonstrate that facts establishing arguable probable cause are “clear from the face of the [SAC].” Rahman v.

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.

Hayes Williams and Arthur Mitchell v. David C. Treen, Governor of the State of Louisiana

671 F.2d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 31, 1982

Damage Claims And The Qualified Immunity Defense: Was There A Violation Of Clearly Established Law? Qualified immunity is unavailable to those 1983 defendants who violate “clearly *898 established” law. 10 Procunier v. … We must determine whether 1983 defendants are entitled to the protections of a qualified immunity when there has been a violation of clearly established state law.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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

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 .

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

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.

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

Lenora Daugherty v. Donal Campbell, Alton R. Hesson, Robert W. Starbuck, Funderburk, Rita A. Starbuck, Kevin W. Daniels, Bobby L. Chessor

935 F.2d 780 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Before the commencement of discovery, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal if the plaintiff fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law.

Rocket Learning, Inc. v. Rivera-Sanchez

715 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 18, 2013

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects a state official from liability for damages under § 1983 where her conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or … Rather, the appellant's claim falters on the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test.

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.