Case law

Flanagan v. Anne Arundel County

593 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 22, 2009

A motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity must be granted unless plaintiffs state plausible facts that the defendants violated their clearly established federal rights. McKenna v. … A court should approach qualified immunity in three stages: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and (3), if so, then whether a

Doran by and Through Doran v. Condon

5 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 26, 1998

Qualified immunity is a question of law. … Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. B. Count II S.

Doe v. Broderick

225 F.3d 440 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 29, 2000

If so, we may proceed to determine whether Detective Broderick is entitled to qualified immunity or whether, because he ran afoul of clearly established constitutional rights, he is to be held personally accountable for his … Detective Broderick argues that he is protected by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in August 1998 that patients in drug treatment facilities had a legitimate expectation of privacy in their files

Dustin Williamson v. Bryan Stirling

912 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 21, 2018

In making its qualified immunity rulings, the district court relied solely on the clearly established prong, deciding that Williamson’s due process rights were not clearly established, and thus awarded qualified immunity … If the law regarding the level of process owed to pretrial detainees was not clearly established as to either situation, Director Stirling and Sheriff Carroll would yet be entitled to qualified immunity on Williamson’s

Rockefeller v. United States Court of Appeals Office, for the Tenth Circuit Judges

248 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2003

The Supreme Court has established two avenues by which public officials may receive immunity from personal liability in a civil action for damages: absolute and qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function receives qualified immunity in a civil action, provided that his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights” of which

Forsyth v. Kleindienst

729 F.2d 267 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 8, 1984

The district court reasoned that because Mitchell failed to establish an objective basis for believing his action to be lawful at the time he authorized the wiretaps in question, the clearly established law made his warrantless … Appealability of Summary Denial of Qualified Immunity Defendant Mitchell appeals also the district court’s summary denial of his qualified immunity claim.

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Rayfield v. Grand Rapids, City of

373 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2018

If either factor is not satisfied, qualified immunity shields the officer from damages. … . *970 In sum, "[t]o survive [a] motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that 'plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly

Miesen v. State Department of Transportation

226 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 1999

Because the DOT is a State agency, see §§ 15.01(5) and 15.46, Stats., Miesen's complaint cannot stand unless the legislature has expressly and clearly consented for the DOT to be sued, thus waiving its sovereign immunity. … According to the DOT, the legislature must clearly and expressly waive the State's sovereign immunity with respect to each type of claim that might be brought under § 109.03(5). We disagree.

Bates v. ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

31 So. 3d 210 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 24, 2010

Therefore, the plaintiff argues the Sheriffs absolute immunity is limited to qualified immunity based upon whether there was a disclosure of knowingly false information. … Section 943.139(4) fails to clearly abrogate, limit, or qualify the absolute immunity provided the Sheriff under common law. For these reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur. 1 .

Anderson v. City of Hopkins

805 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 28, 2011

Clearly Established Right The second step in determining if qualified immunity applies is whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Thus, qualified immunity does not apply as to Kreiling. IV.

Webster v. Moquin

175 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 20, 2001

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that immunity does not apply. See Davis v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the “burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.” Tellier v. Fields, No. 98-2249, 2001 WL 457767, at *11 (2d Cir.

Boyer v. County of Washington

971 F.2d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 1992

Finally, DeClue asserts that notwithstanding any factual dispute, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires determination of probable cause before, … Likewise, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” the denial of a claim of qualified immunity is also immediately appealable. Id. at 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. at 2815-16 .

Coburn v. Nordeen

206 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 6, 2002

Thus, Nordeen’s conduct, in filing a sworn complaint and sworn affidavit stating the facts purporting to establish probable cause, is entitled to qualified, not absolute immunity. … of ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 23 Plaintiffs argument that Nordeen is not entitled to qualified immunity is based on three premises: (1) that

Israel Alicea Rosado v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Secretary of the Department of Social Services of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Gaddiel Morales Burgos v. Patria Custodio

813 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1987

Fair, 804 F.2d 164 (1st Cir.1986), the right at issue was one applicable to all persons, and the qualified immunity question therefore simply was whether it was clearly established that an individual had a right to be free … Thus, in asking the qualified immunity question, we must recognize the individual nature of the right allegedly violated and ask whether it was clearly established that someone in the particular position before us was entitled

A.D. v. Markgraf

636 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 2011

Markgraf moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity. … [1] To determine whether an officer such as Markgraf is entitled to qualified immunity, we inquire whether a constitu- tional right would have been violated on the facts alleged and whether the right was clearly established

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

Williams v. Wapinsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … Given that Williams has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clearly established right in this setting, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this Eighth Amendment claim. IV.

Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford

453 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 18, 2006

In opposing *432 these counts, the individual defendants urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights of the defendant or, in the alternative, the actions of … As this court agrees that the substantive due process rights claimed by the plaintiff are not clearly established, it grants the individual defendants qualified immunity on these claims.

Krider v. Marshall

118 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 6, 2000

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994): “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court of Appeals has parsed out the qualified immunity analysis: “First, we must identify the right allegedly violated; second, we must decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation