Case law

Austin v. City of Pasadena

74 F.4th 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … The test for qualified immunity involves two steps: “first we ask whether the officer’s alleged conduct has violated a federal right; . . . second we ask whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at

Sarah Molina v. Daniel Book

59 F.4th 334 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2023

In the face of a summary-judgment motion seeking qualified immunity, the district court ruled that the claims could proceed to a jury. … It could not have clearly established a First Amendment right to wear the bright green hats.

Gardner v. Howard

109 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1997

Defendants appeal the qualified immunity portion of that ruling. … II. 8 Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 damage liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Jones v. Lieber

579 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Brown v. ONTARIO COUNTY

787 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Nevertheless, I find that even if probable cause was lacking or questionable, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Potera-Haskins v. Gamble

519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Montana · Sep 28, 2007

This examination, in turn, invokes the Court’s obligation to address and resolve the threshold issue of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. 6 Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial … Finally, “[i]f the law did not put the [employer] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield

974 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 1, 2013

) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” … Kaczorowski’s claimed right to employment was clearly established. However, even an affirmative answer to that question may still not be enough to overcome qualified immunity. The First Circuit in Diaz-Bigio v.

Costanich v. Department of Social & Health Services

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previously been clearly established in the civil context. 13 A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make a reasonable

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

Dunklin v. Lowndes County

894 F. Supp. 1527 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 30, 1995

“clearly established”). … In plain terms, Hulett is entitled to qualified immunity if the Plaintiffs fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Hulett violated their clearly established Fourteenth Amendment

Malsh v. Austin

901 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1995

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Stanley v. Barone

210 Conn. App. 239 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 25, 2022

clearly established constitu- tional right. … Thus, in order to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity in the present case, the plaintiff was required to allege facts that would establish that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ada Anglemeyer v. Craig Ammons

92 F.4th 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2024

both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. … Our sister circuits have denied qualified immunity in cases factually similar to Couden. See, e.g., Shannon v.

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

254 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

established right had occurred and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official's] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

375 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 28, 2005

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does … It is the plaintiffs burden to establish that a law is clearly established. Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v.

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

856 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

The basis for their claim of immunity was that Stoneking did not have a clearly established right to be free from the sexual abuse of Wright, a member of the school’s staff, that they were under no clearly established duty … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles government officials performing discretionary functions to immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Department

227 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

Qualified immunity “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 'a reasonable person would have … To evaluate a qualified immunity claim, we first ask whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; if so, we ask whether under that law, and under the circumstances at issue, a reasonable officer

Key v. Grayson

998 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 19, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … not clearly established, and thus recommended that this court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for money damages on the basis of qualified immunity.

Walentas v. Lipper

862 F.2d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 1988

Qualified Immunity. Walentas claims that the district incorrectly applied the standard of qualified immunity in concluding that Lipper was entitled to such immunity. Walentas v. … Thus, since the legal proposition argued by Wal-entas was not clearly established at the relevant time, Lipper’s conduct was protected by qualified immunity.