Case law

Cipes v. Graham

386 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Law is not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court. Hawkins v.

Tyralyn Harris v. New Orleans Police Depart

745 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Doe v. University of Cincinnati

173 F. Supp. 3d 586 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2016

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus shielded from suit under § 1983, for his . actions if his conduct.does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … When a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, as the Defendants have doné' in this case, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, Everson v.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

III Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … objectively unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

Young v. Selk

508 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shockency v. … The defendants in their brief do not focus on this aspect of qualified immunity. First of all, in any case, it was no doubt clearly established long before 2004, when Mr.

Swenson v. Culberson County

925 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Once a prima facie case under Section 1983 is established, the question becomes whether a defendant is entitled to some kind of defense against or immunity from damages liability. … a qualified immunity defense to police officers.

Lincoln v. Barnes

855 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 20, 2017

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry looks to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

Watson v. Apache County

218 Ariz. 512 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 6, 2008

The Watsons challenge the court’s rulings that the County is entitled to qualified immunity and that they failed to *514 present or identify facts or an expert witness to establish gross negligence. … Specifically, they argue that, if the County is not protected by qualified immunity, then the issue of gross negligence is irrelevant.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Citizens for Uniform Taxation v. Northport Public School District

239 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Section 1211 treats nonresidents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property exactly the same as Michigan residents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property, neither are eligible for the

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.

Shoup v. Doyle

974 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 24, 2013

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) and stating that “once the [defendants] raise qualified immunity, Jackson must plead the violation of a clearly established constitutional right”)).

Conroy v. Caron

275 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 8, 2017

That is because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Moreover, their entry into the garages under these . assumed circumstances violated clearly established law, such that they are- not entitled at this time to the protection of qualified immunity. 5 *344 2.

Irvin Morales v. CO John Doe #2, Jon Fouts, Roderick Greenwood, and Keith Forcier

2020 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … “‘[C]learly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ . . . [T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

Greenwood v. State of New York

939 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1996

Qualified Immunity Individual defendants rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion for summary judgment. … Thus, defendants claiming qualified immunity must show either: (1) that the right “was [not] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” or (2) that “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood

Orin v. Barclay

272 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 2001

Qualified immunity shields them “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.” … Orin’s First Amendment rights, in the context of this case, were clearly established.

Lancaster v. Monroe County

116 F.3d 1419 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 1997

The Clearly Established Law 29 At the time of Lancaster's arrest on March 6, 1995, it was clearly established that a jail official violates a pre-trial detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process if he acts with … Because the law clearly established that such conduct violated a pre-trial detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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.