Case law

Chavez v. Jefferson County, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2023

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: (1) “whether an official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff”; and (2) “whether the right was clearly established … Regardless of qualified immunity’s origins, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court precedent—both which recognize qualified immunity.

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense protects government officials from "`liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Lovell v. Comsewogue School District

214 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity In two sentences, the defendants argue that Defendant Rella’s conduct is shielded by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Spinks v. Township of Clinton

402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008

his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier v.

Adrow v. Johnson

623 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 1985

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that even if this search violated the fourth amendment, they are protected by the qualified immunity accorded to certain government officials and are therefore not liable for damages … (“One of the cases [establishing the applicable standard] was a case from this circuit. As the law was, therefore, established, the defendants were not entitled to immunity.” Id. (emphasis added)).

Turner v. Huibregtse

421 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants Mickelson and Esser contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in the course of plaintiffs search did not violate any of plaintiffs clearly established constitutional … I conclude that plaintiffs claims against defendants Mickelson and Esser are not barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Concepcion v. MUNICIPALITY OF GURADBO

558 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 11, 2007

Plaintiffs opposed this request stating that the Complaint survives a qualified immunity attack because it charges Defendants with violations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights, of which co-defendants … Furthermore, as to the other prongs of the qualified immunity test, the right to be free from any sort of political discrimination is a clearly established constitutional right which a reasonable government employee is aware

Wolfel v. Morris

972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity … In a case decided before the qualified immunity doctrine was firmly established in Harlow , our Circuit held that immunity was available to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

McDay Ex Rel. McDay v. City of Atlanta

740 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1990

Qualified Immunity Officers Cartwright and Price move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense first recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierson v.

Perez v. Duran

962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013

However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.

Uinta County v. Pennington

286 P.3d 138 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2012

/d. [114] In order to establish a claim of qualified immunity, the claimant must prove; 1) the officer was acting within the seope of his or her duties; 2) the officer was acting in good faith; 3) the officer's acts were … record when a public official asserts qualified immunity.

Lyde v. New York City

145 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2001

The general rule is that “ ‘doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their *354 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo

113 F.4th 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

As the Supreme Court stated in Mitchell: The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established … And, of course, there’s a class of Bivens cases where raising a qualified immunity defense would be frivolous. Qualified immunity is only available when the constitutional law is not “clearly established.” See Wilk v.

Levy v. City of New York

935 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity 1. Applicable Law Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. … Sergeant Reed is Entitled to Qualified Immunity The Court concludes Sgt.

Davis v. Holly

835 F.2d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Davis to have been clearly established in this jurisdiction. … Fitzgerald teaches that if a qualified-immunity defense is to be defeated on the ground that the constitutional violation was obvious, the constitutional rights in question must have been “clearly established” and must have

Miami-Dade County v. Pozos

242 So. 3d 1152 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 15, 2017

or qualified immunity. … before it, clearly established the County’s immunity from suit.

Parks v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.

841 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.