Case law

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Andrews v. Ring

266 Va. 311 · Supreme Court of Virginia · Sep 12, 2003

The undisputed facts subject to proper consideration by the trial court upon motions for summary judgment on this issue clearly establish that Andrews and Cox seek damages for injury to personal reputation and employment … Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Ring maintains that if he is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, he is, nonetheless, entitled to the same qualified immunity extended to police officers for actions taken

Orange v. County of Grundy

950 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 12, 1996

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … that their conduct violated any of plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUN. v. Romer

921 P.2d 84 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is "clearly established law" is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use "its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents."

Brandt v. Monte

626 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2009

Clearly Established Violation Having found that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, namely, whether the right violated was clearly established … whether the rights violated were clearly established.

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. … 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 to believe that his action did not violate

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Statchen v. Palmer, et al.

2009 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 15, 2009

Even if the force used fell into the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force, Scott and Palmer would be entitled to qualified immunity. The cell incident is less clearly defined. … The statute also echoes the standard for qualified immunity.

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful

Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp.

678 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken *528 was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … They argue that if the law had clearly established that use of an SL6 was unlawful, police departments would no longer retain the weapon in their arsenal. The defendants misconstrue the qualified immunity analysis.

Brown v. City of Atlanta

284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

J.R. v. Gloria

593 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

They asserted, among other grounds, a qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and immunity to the state law negligence claims based on Rhode Island's state sovereign immunity and state qualified immunity law. … We need not address whether any such "right" would have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Saucier v.

Ngong Garang v. City of Ames

2 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” … In conducting this analysis, we “may review the legal issues whether conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law,” but “cannot review whether a factual dispute is genuine.” Sok Kong v.

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Clarence Jason v. James LeBlanc

938 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted Secretary LeBlanc qualified immunity. But it denied qualified immunity to Ladner, Pierce, and Tanner. … Plaintiffs can go to trial if they show that the official violated their clearly established right. 11 In other words, it’s a two-prong test— (1) whether the official violated a right; and (2) whether that right was clearly

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Muslim v. Frame

897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Davis v. Chalstrom

595 F. App'x 627 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2014

Chal-strom has taken an interlocutory appeal, contending that he deserves qualified immunity. … Then the purely legal question for the court would be simply whether Chastrom walked on Davis’s curtilage in a way that violated clearly established law.

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free