Case law

Wood v. MCC Superintendant

89 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

B Plaintiffs can overcome the defendant's assertion of the qualified immunity defense only by showing that Clemons' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center

40 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1994

Swain is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment law in August, 1987. … Importantly, for qualified immunity purposes, Swain cannot be held responsible for knowledge of Barfield , decided by this court in September, 1989, because it was not clearly established law in August, 1987.

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)

Leona Mullins v. Oscar Cyranek

805 F.3d 760 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2015

Cyranek moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. … Police officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Messerschmidt v.

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

Ankele v. Hambrick

286 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, qualified immunity is not available where a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established when violated.

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

779 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2015

If the arrest was supported by probable cause, then Rigney would be entitled to qualified immunity. If not, then qualified immunity was inappropriate and both decisions must be reversed. … Hence, qualified immunity was inappropriate, because it is clearly established that “[p]olice officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause when that determination was premised on an officer

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.

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Cotto v. City of Middletown

158 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 19, 2016

“The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3) even if the right was ‘clearly … Conducting a strip search despite a wholly unjustified lack of privacy violates clearly established law and defeats Davis’ claim of qualified immunity.

Lewis v. Washington

265 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2003

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … I find that the constitutional rights asserted by plaintiffs here are not “clearly established” for purposes of denying defendants qualified immunity.

Davis v. Durham City Schools

91 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1988

The affidavit of the police officer who investigated the matter, however, clearly establishes that the decision to prosecute was made solely by the officer based upon the results of his investigation, and the principal was … of the immunity contemplated by the statute.

Daker v. Ferrero

506 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As stated, in determining whether Defendants have qualified immunity, the Court determines (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Ruffin v. Nicely

183 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2006

The burden of proving that the right was clearly established “rests squarely on the plaintiff,” Cope v. … On appeal, Ruffin has not adequately challenged the district court’s holding that any rights violated were not clearly established. Ruffin only “submits that this was a clearly established Constitutional right.”

Buller v. Buechler

706 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 1983

The Court then articulated its qualified immunity test: a good faith defense will be defeated if the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which he or she knew or should have … defense or qualified immunity.

Rafael L. Balaguer-Santiago v. Hon. Jaime Torres-Gaztambide, Etc.

932 F.2d 1015 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 14, 1991

The defendants, upper-level RHA officials, filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields certain public officials from personal liability for damages awarded in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , except where the challenged official conduct violated a “clearly established

Kent v. Katz

146 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, D. Vermont · May 11, 2001

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from claims brought under federal law if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Moreover, Katz is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Fred Arispe Cruz, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. George Beto and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

603 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1979

Although at the time of this trial the qualified immunity defense had not yet been established in such cases, it is now settled that Beto’s exposure to liability for damages under section 1983 is limited by the qualified … Under the first part, persons clothed with this qualified shield lose its protection if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

Mobley v. City of Detroit

938 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 4, 2012

Finally, they argue that the officers had probable cause to arrest, prosecute and seize vehicles, and that qualified immunity shields them because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … entitled to qualified immunity.