Case law

Gremo v. Karlin

363 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2005

Qualified Immunity All individual defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … Clearly Established Right Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil claims for damages unless there is a deprivation of an actual constitutional right and “that right was clearly established at the time

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.1989). 6 Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless "the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established … established" for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert's death.

Johnson v. Johnson

385 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

immunity on the ground that Johnson had not alleged violations of rights that were clearly established. … Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient.

Greer v. Baker.

137 Haw. 249 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2016

presiding over a lawsuit”), with id. at 868 (Qualified immunity is “[i]mmunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established … “The nature of qualified immunity doctrine bears on the difficulties of the problem, because [qualified] immunity frequently depends on the specific facts of a particular case.” 15A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

Penlyn Development Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor

51 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity The defendant also moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Chavez-Rodriguez v. City of Santa Fe

616 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2009

It is not clear from the briefing whether the Defendants are moving on an absence-of-evidence issue in. their qualified-immunity motion apart from whether the legal principles about causation are clearly established. … The question under the clearly established law step of qualified immunity is whether the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

James Covington v. Veronica Paris

2021 DNH 005 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 7, 2021

In addition, Paris may be entitled to qualified immunity. … If Paris invokes qualified immunity from Covington’s claim that her actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights, to overcome the immunity, Covington must show that his Eighth Amendment right was clearly established during

Marcavage v. National Park Service

666 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

The District Court then found that Saperstein and Crane were entitled to qualified immunity from both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claims because Marcavage’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established … As noted above, to strip Saperstein and Crane of qualified immunity requires the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Anastasio v. WEST ORANGE TP. PLAN. BD.

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Houck v. City of Prairie Village

942 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1996

was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry

813 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The question of qualified immunity generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … In asserting qualified immunity, defendants contend the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time Craig Coker was abused.

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

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

Morales v. New York

22 F. Supp. 3d 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 22, 2014

A qualified immunity defense is established where “(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 such … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts ask first whether there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 706 .

Nathan Rice v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co.

770 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

Qualified immunity is a two-prong analysis. … The Supreme Court has explained that the clearly established standard incorporates an objective reasonableness inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right

Tachiquin v. Stowell

789 F. Supp. 1512 · District Court, E.D. California · May 4, 1992

If the plaintiff fails to state with specificity a “claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … not, was the absence of probable cause so clear as to constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) under the law as it existed at the time?

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset, we have stated, "[t]he question of qualified immunity therefore dovetails almost precisely with

Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Pyne v. Meese

172 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Under the Harlow test, Black and Hurd did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and are thus immune from liability. … Once again, we must apply the Harlow test to determine whether a qualified immunity exists.