Case law

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.

Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Zayas

671 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

III.Qualified Immunity In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a defense of qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to state executive officers performing discretionary functions, “insofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Ottman v. City Of Independence

341 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

We review de novo a denial of qualified immunity. Holloway v. … Reeves, 277 F.3d 1035 , 1037 (8th Cir.2002). 13 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig

764 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 28, 1991

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established … As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

539 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Defendants now appeal *1196 the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Hennessey. 5 II We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Thompson v. Penna. Parole Board Member Jefferson

544 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1982

The case was remanded to this court for further factual development to determine whether Jefferson was entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and, if Jefferson was entitled to qualified immunity, whether he could satisfy … The Court held that governmental officials are entitled to immunity so long as they “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

Ham v. Greene

248 Conn. 508 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · May 4, 1999

Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his … New Haven, supra, 950 F.2d 870 , first concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law only if, on the facts found, their conduct *523 either did not violate “ ‘clearly established . .

D.M. v. State

25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Dayton

134 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

The district court denied summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue, finding that Gabringer was not entitled to qualified immunity because: (1) the affidavit filed by Gabringer in application for the search warrant … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer

Womack v. Bradshaw

49 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 2014

An officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to inquire whether the “right that was violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police

35 F.4th 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2022

Rather than denying qualified immunity, as it had done before, the district court determined that there had been no constitutional violation at all, clearly established or otherwise. … The key issue is whether he is entitled to qualified immunity, which depends on how we answer two questions. First, did his actions violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established?

Edwards v. Quiros

986 F.3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages as long as the officials’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … a reasonable person would have known.” 1 Because the district court found that prisoners do not have a clearly established right “to recreate free from restraints,” it granted qualified immunity to the defendants. 2

Tremain Spivey, Shirley Spivey, as Next Friend for Tremain Spivey v. Michael Elliott, Lynn Crothers, Wilma Davis, Carolyn Mitchell

29 F.3d 1522 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

The defendants are entitled to qualified *1527 immunity if that law was not clearly established at the time. We hold it was not. … Because this right was not clearly established at the time this suit was brought, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Smith v. Lejeune

203 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, D. Wyoming · May 17, 2002

If the plaintiff establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct. … , the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.