Case law

Whalen v. Massachusetts Trial Court

397 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 4, 2005

Moreover, the individual defendants claimed the shield of qualified immunity, arguing that Whalen did not have a clearly established constitutional right to a hearing before a budget-driven termination of his position' — … The “Clearly Established Right” and “Reasonableness” It is beyond debate that, as a general matter, the constitutional right to due process claimed by Whalen was clearly established at the time he was laid off.

Horne v. Coughlin

191 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the Ninth Circuit believed this constitutional right was already clearly established, it had denied qualified immunity. See id. at 1712 .

May v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners

59 F. App'x 786 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 12, 2003

that he had qualified immunity. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Mitchell clearly establishes that an order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary-judgment stage is

Handmaker v. Henney

128 N.M. 328 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1999

resolution of the Essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.’ ” Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 615 , 845 P.2d at 138 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct … 23(A), our review by writ of error is necessarily limited by the nature of immunity established by the Legislature.

Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco

499 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

The *1097 court also found Barry and Liddicoet not entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of the arrest was clearly established at the time. II. DISCUSSION A. … Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves as a defense to § 1983 claims against government officers “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Robey v. Chester County

946 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a court determines qualified immunity according to an objective standard: an official’s conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Only federal constitutional and statutory rights can be considered in evaluating a claim for qualified immunity under Harlow ; violations of clearly established state law alone are not sufficient. Davis v.

Kaufman v. Carter

952 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1996

I conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to prisons. … Qualified immunity is not available where an official violates “clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Viero v. Bufano

901 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 28, 1995

Immunity Búfano and Little also seek dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … That is enough to strip them of any putative qualified immunity because, as Hamilton v.

Teresa Buchanan v. F. Alexander

919 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

The qualified immunity inquiry comprises two questions: (1) “whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights” and (2) whether that right was clearly established. 32 “We now have discretion to skip the … That is because of the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry, which requires a plaintiff to show that any violation of rights was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

John Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin

12 F.3d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1994

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v. … Since Smay properly raised this defense, unless Plaintiffs can show that a sufficient consensus clearly established the existence of a violated constitutional right, Smay' will receive qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’

Coffey v. Quinn

578 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 14, 1983

At the time of the decision, the law in that circuit was undecided as to whether local legislators enjoyed absolute or qualified personal immunity. … Municipal decisionmakers passing on administrative questions possess qualified good faith immunity, not absolute immunity. See Wood v. Strictland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v.

Bradford v. County of Oakland

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2020

B “Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Gullatte v. Potts

654 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 1981

of the qualified immunity. 590 F.2d at 110 . … qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to the action.

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Sharp v. Kelsey

918 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity With regard to the manner of handling Ms. Sharp, defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the Sixth Circuit, “when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable

Gardner v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS, FOR KANSAS CITY

641 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

Ritchie is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gardner, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … The court further concluded that at the time of the shooting, the law was clearly established on this point, and that Ritchie was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents

594 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2008

This Court held in its August 4, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 2986389 , that there is no question of law as to whether the following rights were clearly established: (1) the right not to be terminated from employment at a public uni-versify … established law.

Picciano v. McLoughlin

723 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 13, 2010

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (“Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless

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.

Joseph v. Patterson

795 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1986

If the law which the defendant’s conduct is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail and discovery proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune and summary judgment is proper. Windsor, 719 F.2d at 165 .