Case law

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Vakilian v. Shaw

335 F.3d 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … Therefore, we must assume, for qualified immunity purposes only, that Vakilian has established a constitutional violation

Jackson v. Hamm

78 F. Supp. 2d 1233 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 27, 1999

However, this holding does not end the qualified-immunity inquiry. As stated above, a constitutional right must not only exist, it must have been clearly established at the time of the violation. … Moreover, even if such right were violated, the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Upshaw is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. IV.

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.