Case law

Kennedy v. Osmanski, III

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2022

Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 600-01 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding that FBI agents were not entitled to qualified immunity in a Bivens action arising from a warrantless search of plaintiff’s home in … Moreover, First Circuit precedent establishes the viability of Bivens claims in the aftermath of an unreasonable search during a routine law enforcement investigation. See DeMayo v.

Cotnoir v. University of Maine Systems

35 F.3d 6 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 13, 1994

" with the qualified immunity issue. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

Demilo-Fytros v. City of Mount Vernon

993 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 1998

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the current record that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lee-Walker v. New York City Department of Education

712 F. App'x 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … For these reasons we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the claim against the individual- defendants on qualified immunity grounds.

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

Peters v. City of Buffalo

848 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Having found that Clark and Marusak are not entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal may nevertheless be proper if their actions are entitled to qualified immunity. … Officials are protected from § 1983 liability by qualified immunity if their actions (1) did not violate clearly established law or (2) were objectively reasonable. See Warren v. Keane, 196 F.3d 330 , 332 (2d Cir.1999).

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri

760 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

Louis County, Missouri. 1 Officers Lively and Percich moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and St. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

Timmins v. Toto

91 F. App'x 165 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 5, 2004

To establish qualified immunity in § 1983 claims, a defendant must show “either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … Whatever rule Walsh established, that rule was not clearly established at the time of the chase. Toto is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Abromaitis, 294 F.3d at 360 .

Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann

810 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 15, 2016

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have … Feltmann is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Walter v. Pike County, Pennsylvania

465 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

If the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … See, e.g., Smith, 318 F.3d at 510 (finding that the state-created danger doctrine was clearly established by the year 1999).

Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp.

678 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken *528 was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … They argue that if the law had clearly established that use of an SL6 was unlawful, police departments would no longer retain the weapon in their arsenal. The defendants misconstrue the qualified immunity analysis.

Dorris v. City of McKinney

214 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 4, 2016

“A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “The law is clearly established that a public employee may be neither discharged nor demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment Rights.” Cox, 577 Fed.Appx. at 313 .

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … immunity when probable cause is at issue is clearly erroneous and not de novo.

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.

Garcia v. Webb County District Attorney

764 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 12, 1991

Thus absolute immunity is not a protection to Defendant Garcia in his role as an employer; at best, Defendant Garcia has only qualified immunity for his alleged misbehavior in the instant case. Qualified Immunity. … Defendant Garcia has not established entitlement to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and he does not have absolute immunity.

Dayna Lee v. David Russ

33 F.4th 860 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2022

The district court granted Russ qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects Russ unless (1) he violated Groom’s constitutional rights and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time. White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam).