Case law

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty

346 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Disagreeing with Appellants, the district court denied qualified immunity after determining that Yolovar’s rights were clearly established at the time of enforcement and that Appellants’ enforcement of the Nonresident Lobster … Qualified immunity is warranted if either *102 (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in

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.

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.

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.

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

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”)).

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.

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.

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.

William King v. Jason Chide and Mark Gonzales

974 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 1992

Our first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the Plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

Pierce v. Smith

117 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 1997

For example, where the complained of conduct is a law enforcement warrantless search of a residence, qualified immunity turns not only on whether it was then clearly established that such a search required probable cause … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), the Court stated that in a qualified immunity case, “the first inquiry” is whether the plaintiff has “failed to allege the violation of a clearly established

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield

974 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 1, 2013

) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” … Kaczorowski’s claimed right to employment was clearly established. However, even an affirmative answer to that question may still not be enough to overcome qualified immunity. The First Circuit in Diaz-Bigio v.

Rodriguez v. WOLBACH

499 F. Supp. 2d 479 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2007

However, if a constitutional violation is *488 proven, “the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” 92 Qualified immunity applies unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional … his conduct was unlawful.’ ” 115 If an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity.