Case law

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

Bird v. Lampert

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

(2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Clearly Established Law But even if we assume that a constitutional violation occurred, defendants Lampert, Pacheco, and Weik would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established

Ortiz v. Morris

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 27, 2020

Following discovery, Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Whether an officer is immune "turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the action] was taken" (quotations and citation omitted

Reyes-Reyes v. Toledo-Davila

860 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity, “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liabilityU” Hunter v. … Here, Benitez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) such right was “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County

649 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Thus, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Tyralyn Harris v. New Orleans Police Depart

745 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

Minigan v. Irvin

977 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Young v. Selk

508 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 28, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Shockency v. … The defendants in their brief do not focus on this aspect of qualified immunity. First of all, in any case, it was no doubt clearly established long before 2004, when Mr.

Webster v. Moquin

175 F. Supp. 2d 315 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 20, 2001

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that immunity does not apply. See Davis v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the “burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a clearly established right.” Tellier v. Fields, No. 98-2249, 2001 WL 457767, at *11 (2d Cir.

Krider v. Marshall

118 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 6, 2000

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994): “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court of Appeals has parsed out the qualified immunity analysis: “First, we must identify the right allegedly violated; second, we must decide whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Swenson v. Culberson County

925 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 23, 1996

Qualified Immunity Once a prima facie case under Section 1983 is established, the question becomes whether a defendant is entitled to some kind of defense against or immunity from damages liability. … a qualified immunity defense to police officers.

Pavlov v. Parsons

574 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 14, 1983

and qualified immunity from the constitutional tort claims. … Once the defendant establishes this defense, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendants’ action violated clearly established law. Harlow v.

Fernando Jacquez v. R.K. Procunier

801 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth stated, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” 472 U.S.

Baisi v. Burke

359 F. Supp. 3d 592 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Jan 9, 2019

Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and I dismiss the complaint on that basis. … To overcome defendants' assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the constitutional right he seeks to vindicate was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty

346 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Disagreeing with Appellants, the district court denied qualified immunity after determining that Yolovar’s rights were clearly established at the time of enforcement and that Appellants’ enforcement of the Nonresident Lobster … Qualified immunity is warranted if either *102 (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in

Beckinger v. TOWNSHIP OF ELIZABETH

697 F. Supp. 2d 610 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2010

A broad and generalized declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. … The relevant conduct in Reilly occurred prior to Garcetti at a time when the right was clearly established.

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

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.

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

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours