Case law

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Robert W. Fowler v. Armond Cross, Commissioner of Florida Parole Board

635 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1981

Navarette, 434 U.S. at 562 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 , the Supreme Court said: 9 [T]he [qualified] immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established … The district court’s finding of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is reversed. III.

Maria Castro v. United States of America, Don Abrams, Jason Davs, Daniel Bologna

34 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Defendants assert that they have qualified immunity because officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages unless the conduct in question violates clearly estab *110 lished statutory or constitutional … Though a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, that doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b)

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Zapach v. Dismuke

134 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Richard E. Finlan (And Don Venable - Dismissed) v. Dallas Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 24, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if A their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

Kathleen Benison v. George Ross

765 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time the lawsuit was filed. 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not … Therefore, if a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) “a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the]

Brown v. Lyford

243 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2001

II To overcome the qualified immunity of government officials, Brown must show 1) a constitutional violation; 2) of a right clearly established at the time the violation occurred; and 3) that the defendant actually … So much is established for res judicata and the statute of limitations, two other affirmative defenses. . . . Defendants inform us that they want the benefit of qualified immunity.

Braham v. Newbould

Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 6, 2015

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … ‘‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’’ Brooks v. Sweeney, supra, 299 Conn. 217.

Estate of Massey ex rel. Co-Administrators of her Estate Hodges v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2015

Because the Third Circuit has clearly held that the burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity falls on the defendant, Defendants have not yet met their burden to sufficiently plead qualified immunity, and Plaintiff … ’s conduct allegedly violated were clearly established.”).

Linbrugger v. Abercia

363 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if them conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … First, we must determine whether the facts, either as the plaintiff alleges or as proved without dispute, establish that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. Price v.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.

Dora Elizabeth Cook v. Gwinnett Co. School Dist.

414 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2005

clearly established.” … immunity because they violated clearly established law.

Mejia v. City of New York

119 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The basic test for determining whether a public official is entitled to assert qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … : qualified immunity shields public officials “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 known

Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Sythe v. City of Eureka

78 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FALSE ARREST Government officials performing their discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ANALYSIS For this Court to find qualified immunity for the individual officers in the case at bar, it must reach two conclusions: First, that the law governing the officers’ conduct was clearly established; and second, under

Nagle v. Marron

663 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity 4 Although the statutory text of § 1983 provides for no immunities, it has been read “‘in 5 harmony with general principles of tort immunities’” to provide qualified immunity for most … Id.; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If the law did not put the officer on 7 notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified 8 immunity is appropriate.”). 9 The