Case law

Williams v. Wapinsky

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v. … Given that Williams has failed to allege that Defendants violated a clearly established right in this setting, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this Eighth Amendment claim. IV.

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.

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

Perez v. United States

103 F. Supp. 3d 1180 · District Court, S.D. California · May 1, 2015

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can allege the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right. Pearson v. … Defendant Fisher "moves to dismiss the SAC, but only as to the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity....” (ECF No. 65-1 at 9). .

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Ronnie Jackson v. Jeff Gutzmer

866 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2017

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The immunity standard in Harlow itself eliminates all motive-based claims in which the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.” Id. at 592.

Meagen Brinegar v. C.O. Lumpbert individually and in his official capacitys

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 30, 2020

The circuit court granted WVRJCFA’s motion first, in part on the application of qualified immunity. Ms. … Therefore, we find no error in the circuit court’s application of qualified immunity. In her third assignment of error, Ms.

McPherson v. Auger

842 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (establishing the standard for assessing whether an officer is shielded from civil liability suits by qualified immunity). … Hence, Defendant Auger is protected by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs civil damages suit.

Johnson v. Johnson

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

Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient. … If Johnson has indeed failed to allege a violation, then of course there can be no violation of clearly established law that would overcome qualified immunity. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 .

Aczel v. Labonia

92 F. App'x 17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 2004

facts plaintiff invokes constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the event. … established at the time.

Baker v. Smiscik

49 F. Supp. 3d 489 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2014

Embody, 695 F.3d at 581 . *501 Plaintiff fails to meet the clearly-established-right prong for the qualified immunity analysis. … Neither of these sources provides a basis for finding a clearly established constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Barrett, 388 F.3d at 972.

Ronald Dean Brown v. Crispus C. Nix John Henry John Emmet Paul Hedgepath Charles Harper Paul Grossheim Hal Farrier

33 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

They asserted, among other things, that they are immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity. … In order to lose their qualified immunity, officials must violate an inmate’s clearly established constitutional rights. Id.

Dingle v. District of Columbia

571 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims of false arrest. 5 Construing the facts in favor of plaintiffs deposition testimony, the Court finds the officers … Applying the two-part analysis to this action, it appears from this record that Officer Moore violated a clearly established right.

Denning v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

564 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 16, 2008

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised by the defendant, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Untalan v. … The second question in determining the applicability of qualified immunity — whether Denning had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired upon — is therefore moot.

Orem v. Rephann

523 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2008

Hence, qualified immunity will shield Deputy Rephann from suit if “a reasonable officer” could have believed tasering Orem was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information Deputy Re-phann possessed … Rather, Deputy Rephann used the taser to punish or intimidate Orem — a use that is not objectively reasonable, is contrary to clearly established law, and not protected by qualified immunity. Y.

Smothers v. Gibson

778 F.2d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 1985

ANALYSIS Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective unreasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … The Cummins Unit argues that it should be accorded qualified immunity from liability for damages because the law of prison visitor strip searches was not clearly established in 1981.

Sepatis v. City and County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Nieves v. County of Monroe

761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information

Kellogg v. City of Gary

562 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

qualified immunity defense depends upon the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to *704 clearly established law." … qualified immunity.

Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty.

910 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2018

entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court held that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Gorman's complaint constituted protected speech.