Case law

Fisher v. City of Las Cruces

584 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Law The next question is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful incident.

Parker v. Board of Regents of the Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” … facts are in dispute which would defeat the claim of qualified immunity.

Kraft v. Adams

248 Ga. App. 141 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jan 23, 2001

Once that is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … This requirement that plaintiff show a clearly established right is a strenuous one. . . .

Alfred Garionis, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Harriet Newton and Keith Barr, Appellees/cross-Appellants

827 F.2d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

Newton and Barr are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2818 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Harlow v. … It follows a fortiori that neither the *309 arrest nor the subsequent transfer of custody to Barr violated clearly established law.

Eves v. LePage

842 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 22, 2016

Qualified Immunity Framework Qualified immunity analysis, which forecloses Speaker Eves’s damages claims, encompasses two inquiries. … Oct. 24, 2016) (affording qualified immunity to elected official, for lack of clearly established law, in part because “it has never been established that a governmental official who does not himself retaliate but instead

Tolbert v. Queens College

164 F.3d 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

the qualified immunity issue can[ ]not be resolved before trial. … the federal right allegedly infringed was “clearly established,” ....

Gorman v. Mississippi

258 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 11, 2017

right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”’” … immunity; the law was clearly established that “no reasonable officer could .have thought that this amount of force was legal under the circumstances,” even though there was no case directly on point.

Showers v. Spangler

957 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

of clearly established law.” … While we conclude here that Johnson is correct in so finding, we must also conclude that this was not clearly established law in April of 1993. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Karchefske v. Department of Mental Health

143 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1985

S Ct 855 ; 55 L Ed 2d 24 (1978) (qualified immunity for *6 prison officials and officers), Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232 ; 94 S Ct 1683 ; 40 L Ed 2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for governor and other executive officers) … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted.

Theadore Black v. Thomas A. Coughlin III

76 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 9, 1996

immunity a “defendant must establish that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his act violated no clearly established rights,” id. at 54 ), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Walker … Moreover, to the extent that Black claims that Ryan was biased against him, it is not a given that Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, for it has long been clearly established that an inmate subject

Merisier v. Ellender

197 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 6, 2016

As the First Circuit recently explained: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Gardner v. Hill

195 F. Supp. 2d 832 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2001

Deputy Havard defends by stating qualified immunity bars all these claims brought against him by the plaintiff. A. Federal Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity “reconciled] two competing interests. … The analysis of a qualified immunity claim requires the court: (1) to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and (2) if so, then the court must decide if the

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n v. Forst

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants’ qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

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.

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Williams v. Greifinger

918 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 30, 1996

Therefore, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages. III. … That is a separate issue which goes to qualified immunity, and it is examined below. See Davis v.

Anthony Coons, Sr. v. Steven F. Casabella

284 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity We review de novo the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Cerrone v. Brown, 246 F.3d 194, 198 (2d Cir.2001). … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity in making arrests where “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it

Richardson v. Nassau County Medical Center

840 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a civil action if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Whether the government official can benefit from qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was

Aldarondo-Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 2, 2004

Qualiñed Immunity Inquiry The qualified immunity doctrine protects civil servants from suit and liability arising from the performance of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … The Court begins with the first prong of the qualified immunity test: whether Plaintiffs can establish that a particular defendant violated their constitutional rights.