Case law

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Wachtler v. County Of Herkimer

35 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

Vehicle & Traffic Law Sec. 1800(a). 20 We have held that the Fourth Amendment proscription of strip-searches of misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable suspicion is clearly enough established to preclude the defense of qualified … Thus, the individual defendants involved in the strip-search are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 23 Herkimer County, however, does not have qualified immunity, Owen v.

Johnson Ex Rel. Cano v. Holmes

377 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2004

Once a defendant raises the- qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must “come forward with facts or allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that [the] law was clearly … If the plaintiff meets this two-part burden, the defendant “assumes the normal summary judgment burden of establishing that no material facts that would defeat his claim for qualified immunity remain in dispute.”

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

Mahoney v. Hankin

844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … In evaluating Hankin’s qualified immunity defense to these allegations, we must assess the “objective legal reasonableness” of his actions “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [those actions

Kissner v. Orr

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022

The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

III Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable … objectively unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

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.

Dooley v. St. Louis County

187 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2006

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under [Section] 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

Julie Ann Hamstead v. Matthew Harvey, individually and as Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County, West Virgina, and the Jefferson County Commission, a corporate body

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2022

To overcome qualified immunity, a claimant must establish that the employee or official knowingly violated a clearly established law or acted maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively. … Thus, the analysis turns to whether the acts alleged by the plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity because the acts violated some clearly established right of which a reasonable public official would have known, or were

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.

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.