Case law

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

Burdette v. Panola County ex rel. Darby

53 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 20, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from suit based on the performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A.

Crowley v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Southampton

872 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1995

The Complaint should be Dismissed Against the Individual Defendants on the Basis of Qualified Immunity. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Childress v. Walker

943 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 30, 2013

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the plaintiff cannot prove that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity applies.

Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital

170 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 22, 2001

When qualified immunity is raised in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing that the defendant violated clearly established law. … right was clearly established.”

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.

Hydrick v. Hunter

449 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 1, 2006

Thus, there are two bodies of law from which we might draw "clearly established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context … established" law for qualified immunity purposes: first, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is clearly established even in the prison context, and second, where the SVPs claim a violation of a right that is

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.

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.”

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

Estate of Smith v. Michigan

256 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all federal constitutional claims. … Furthermore, when a defendant asserts a qualified immunity bar in a motion to dismiss a section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs complaint must *713 establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Portera v. State of Ala. Dept. of Finance

322 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2004

Where the law that the government employee allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offpnse, the employee is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Thus, the remaining issue under the qualified-immunity analysis is whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law. 16 *1296 To determine whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law, the court

Bostic v. Rodriguez

667 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2009

Under Pearson , the court next proceeds to the second step in the qualified-immunity framework: was this right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation? … Therefore, the right was not clearly established, and Rodriguez is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

O'CONNELL v. Gorski

715 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 14, 1989

immunity from liability for civil damages inasmuch as their decision to dismiss the plaintiff did not violate any of his “clearly established” rights. 4 Harlow v. … It merely supports the con- *1206 elusion that the law was in fact not clearly established at the time of his dismissal and that, therefore, Gorski and NeMoyer are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages.

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). .