Case law

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

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.

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 . .

Southerland v. City of New York

680 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 237, the pertinent 4 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the 5 defendant’s actions, see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. … Thus, even if the right at issue “was clearly established in certain 12 respects,” a state actor “is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable 13 competence could disagree’ on the legality of the

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.

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Hartsoe v. Tucker

371 Mont. 539 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2013

¶8 Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 18 holds that immunity from suit may be established by a two-third vote of the Legislature. … ¶11 Hartsoe also raises issues of qualified immunity for state employees, and asserts a malicious prosecution claim for the first time on appeal.

Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville

476 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2007

Next, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs rights under the First and Four Amendments are “clearly established” in this case for purposes of qualified immunity. … Rather than directing his argument to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the “clearly established” prong, Officer Popp focuses all of his arguments on the first prong. None of these arguments is novel.

Barnes v. County of Placer

654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

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?

Smith v. Arkansas Department of Correction

103 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" … of whether the alleged facts support a violation of clearly established law.

Germany v. Vance

673 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 1, 1987

They also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity as state officials because they had no clearly established constitutional duty to disclose the recantation by plaintiffs father. Discussion A.. … Qualified Immunity. The defendants have raised a qualified immunity defense to all of plaintiffs claims.

Jean v. Collins

107 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 7, 1997

Ill A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 when his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … B In deciding whether Shingleton and Collins are entitled to qualified immunity we must next determine whether the specific right infringed was clearly established in 1982. Pritchett v.

Freeman v. Fallin

310 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2004

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] 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.” … establish that the urinalysis testing at issue here qualifies as a search.

Dwayne Andrews v. Keith Schafer

888 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

Flynn v. Burns

289 F. Supp. 3d 948 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 29, 2018

do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant's action violated a clearly established right. Estate of Escobedo v.

Smith v. Lee

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If Stewart can establish the violation of his constitutional right to be free of excessive force, the Court will then analyze the second element of qualified immunity, which is whether the right was clearly established

Ottman v. City of Independence

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

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, Hahl is entitled to qualified immunity. C.