Case law

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.

Posey v. City of Buckhannon

228 W. Va. 612 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jan 27, 2012

City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139 , 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), makes clear: The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. … Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition

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.

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

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.

Rincover v. State, Department of Finance, Securities Bureau

128 Idaho 653 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1996

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that although qualified immunity is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations, absolute immunity applies to those officials performing … Because we conclude that Klein and Patty are entitled to absolute immunity, we will not consider whether the standards for the doctrine of qualified immunity have been met and will, rather, affirm the district court’s decision

Luis J. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.

878 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 5, 1988

More importantly, in the determination of whether qualified immunity applies, the proper focus is on whether the plaintiff’s right to continued employment was clearly established, not on whether the job involves policy-making … A decision which denies qualified immunity necessarily establishes the merits of plaintiff’s claim. For this reason, the Secretary’s assertion is without merit. AFFIRMED.

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service

471 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The defendants’ motion is based on judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and a qualified good faith immunity. As the Supreme Court held in Pierson v. … in support thereof (or the lack of that authority), whether a claim has been stated by *767 a specific count, and whether a specific right was or was not clearly established.

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.

Abila v. Funk

220 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 23, 2016

*1170 established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Bator v. Hawaii

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator’s employment.

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.

Fred Arispe Cruz, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. George Beto and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

603 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1979

Although at the time of this trial the qualified immunity defense had not yet been established in such cases, it is now settled that Beto’s exposure to liability for damages under section 1983 is limited by the qualified … Under the first part, persons clothed with this qualified shield lose its protection if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or

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.

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

Pfeil v. Lampert

11 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2014

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 conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Cooper v. Martin

634 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

The defendants bear the burden of establishing the relevant facts supporting qualified immunity, while Cooper receives the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Wallingford v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage actions if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Morris v.

Adewale v. Whalen

21 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 7, 1998

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights of “which a reasonable person would have … cause is the clearly established standard for making an arrest.

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he