Case law

Brantley v. Wysocki

145 F. Supp. 3d 407 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

Corporal Wysocki is entitled to qualified immunity on Brantley’s First Amendment Retaliation claim “Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … The next question is determining if Brantley’s constitutional right is clearly established.

Loch v. City of Litchfield

837 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 17, 2011

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Parrish v.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , "[t]he 'clearly established law' and 'objective reasonableness' facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the 'clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Brooks v. Whiteford

384 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 21, 2019

The Supreme Court has recently explained that when a court is deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, "the clearly established right must be defined with specificity," that the court should not "define … Thus, the fact that the right to be from excessive force, as a general principle, has long been clearly established is not dispositive of whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Griffin v. Strong

739 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, D. Utah · May 14, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendant Strong’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … or inconsistent with that “clearly established” law.

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.

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

Nelson Ex Rel. the Estate of Nelson v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity The Sheriff argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity precludes his individual liability for civil damages. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil. damages as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Brown v. Montana

442 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Wills is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established as to that social worker’s action, it likewise was clearly established here.

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein

598 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we hold that qualified immunity *150 bars his federal constitutional claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly established rights.

Ohio Ex Rel. Manuel v. Ohio Department of Health

810 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions are objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Defendants have qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the [Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that

Avi Adelman v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 20, 2019

Adelman bears the burden of negating Branch’s qualified immunity defense by showing “(1) that [Branch] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … “The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right” for qualified immunity purposes. Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 542 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Mangieri v.

Ganek v. Leibowitz

874 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

 immunity on the ground that the right was not  then clearly established.   …  immunity and summary judgment  should  be  granted  to  the  defendant  on  the  basis  of  qualified  immunity”).   

Cipes v. Graham

386 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Law is not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court. Hawkins v.

Craighead v. Lee

399 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

Paul moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the Section 1983 claims and based on official immunity as to the state-law claims. … Wilson held that summary judgment on qualified immunity was inappropriate because "[t]he current record does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of the officers' actions or beliefs." Wilson, 293 F.3d at 454.

Angle v. Dow

822 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 1, 1993

anal *1538 ysis public officials will be entitled to qualified immunity in two situations: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established; and 2) when the law is clearly established and the Court … Therefore, the Court will examine the clearly established law, the second step of qualified immunity analysis. Defendants rely entirely on Dartland v.

Calnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department

200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001

We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.

Bradford v. Wiggins

516 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

If so, we must then determine *1196 whether the right was clearly established. Id. … right was clearly established.

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.1989). 6 Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless "the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established … established" for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert's death.

Greenwood v. State of New York

939 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1996

Qualified Immunity Individual defendants rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion for summary judgment. … Thus, defendants claiming qualified immunity must show either: (1) that the right “was [not] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” or (2) that “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood