Case law

Click v. Copeland

970 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992

In the first part of Matherne, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because the law was not clearly established in July 1983 that a sheriff could not retaliate … The crucial difference was the analytical framework established by McBee. Id. at 759, 760. The law of McBee was clearly established in January 1988.

Grune v. Rodriguez

176 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 26, 1999

Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated any "clearly established" rights of plaintiff. … DISCUSSION 14 Appellants argue on this appeal that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because their actions did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Michael Alexander v. Mark McKinney

692 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two questions: (1) whether the official’s con- duct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Surita v.

Fils v. City of Aventura

647 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The court then revised its rulings on the Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. … But, where the officer’s conduct is so outrageous that it clearly goes “so far beyond” these borders, qualified immunity will not protect him *1292 even in the absence of case law. Reese v.

Kaminski v. Anderson

792 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[a] right is clearly established when the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right....

David Evans v. Patrick Baker

703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.

Bessman v. Powell

991 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 20, 1998

established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries. … The Court notes that qualified immunity also acts to bar Plaintiffs Due Process claims because, as alleged, Plaintiffs Due Process claims are not clearly established.

Hudson v. Hudson

475 F.3d 741 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 26, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … IV 9 * Having determined that qualified immunity is available to these officers, we next consider whether they are entitled to it. We engage in the well-established two-step inquiry specified in Saucier v.

Jordan v. Berman

792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.

Clouser v. City of Thornton

676 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 31, 1987

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that his federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Robin Akins v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Defendants

840 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 11, 1988

On the matter of immunity, the magistrate determined that the case law at that time did not clearly establish the substantive due process right to be free from arbitrary and capricious action on the part of university officials … established.

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.

Larenzo Irvin v. Tyler Richardson

20 F.4th 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage liability for a discretionary act that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional -4- rights … : whether the rights at issue were clearly established.

Moon v. Rockdale County

188 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2016

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Farrelly v. City of Concord

902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Adrow v. Johnson

623 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 1985

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that even if this search violated the fourth amendment, they are protected by the qualified immunity accorded to certain government officials and are therefore not liable for damages … (“One of the cases [establishing the applicable standard] was a case from this circuit. As the law was, therefore, established, the defendants were not entitled to immunity.” Id. (emphasis added)).

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia

93 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

For acts to which qualified immunity may apply, 2 it held that the plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly the Court held that qualified immunity could be penetrated only on a showing of objective unreasonableness—the now familiar requirement of “clearly established” rights. Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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.

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.

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge's qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 250 (2d Cir.2001). 9 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "if either (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant