Case law

Don A. Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, L.F. Eudy, Richardson Police Department Director, and Kenneth Yarbrough, Chief of Police

855 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1988

established at the time he was fired so as to preclude their asserting a claim of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense for public officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 “Clearly established” means

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … First Amendment rights were clearly established, and Sanders, therefore, would be entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Cochran v. Folger

740 F. Supp. 2d 923 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Sep 16, 2010

clearly established constitutional law. … Qualified Immunity.

Carswell v. Borough of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Murphy, 274 F.3d ruling on qualified immunity. … facts material to the qualified immunity violation of excessive force.

Rodriguez-Cortes v. Superintendencia del Capitolio

236 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 17, 2017

(2), if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of defendant’s violation.” … Defendants fail to satisfy either part of the qualified immunity test. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to defendant Vazquez.

Bah v. City of N.Y.

319 F. Supp. 3d 698 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 21, 2018

Nevertheless, he is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established law. … On qualified immunity, the officer's actions are assessed in view of the clearly established law at the time the officer acted. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 244, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).

Lenell Geter v. James Fortenberry

882 F.2d 167 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

We examine the plaintiffs’ factual allegations only to determine whether they would be sufficient, if proven, to make out a violation of clearly-established law. 3 II. … However, in Geter I we held that these same allegations were substantial enough to “remove the cloak of qualified immunity”: “[A] police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he procures false identification

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

Eidson v. Owens

515 F.3d 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … But if a violation can be shown, we must then consider whether the right was clearly established. Id. A.

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

Under this defense, "[p]ublic officials, including police officers, who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that either (1) a constitutional right was violated or (2) that the right was clearly established, -7-

Richard Christopher Johnson v. City of Miami Beach

18 F.4th 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2021

Qualified Immunity We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Cantu, 974 F.3d at 1228. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

Tanner v. San Juan County Sheriff's Office

864 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to establish that the officer violated clearly established law.

Murphy v. Goss

103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2015

Standards for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983 Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … “whether federal rights asserted by a plaintiff were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir.2003). George v.

Taylor v. Alabama

95 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 19, 2000

Similarly, “[ujnder the qualified immunity defense,” these Defendants “are immune from liability if [Plaintiffs Complaint] fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional right [ ] of which a reasonable … In other words, Harris, Bass, Butts, Rushing and Woodham “are immune from liability” on the basis of qualified immunity because Plaintiffs Complaint “fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional

Cornell v. Woods

69 F.3d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 1995

Qualified Immunity 24 The prison officials claim that the district court committed error by refusing to grant them qualified immunity. This is an issue that we review de novo. See Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 . … Qualified immunity applies unless the officials' conduct violates " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 (quoting Harlow v.

Lewis v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2017

Public officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) a constitutional right was [not] violated or (2) the right was not clearly established [at the time of the violation].” … Rather, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based on the contention that the Complaint does not. include facts establishing the underlying constitutional violations, which the Court has rejected. VI.

Eldredge v. TOWN OF FALMOUTH, MA

662 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity is designed to "balance[] two important interests – the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and … Because a finding that a right was not "clearly established" under the second prong of the analysis is sufficient to warrant a grant of qualified immunity, see id. at 236-37, discussion of the first prong will in some