Case law

Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna

903 F.3d 534 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

As is well-established, “qualified immunity means immunity from having to stand trial, not simply immunity from monetary liability.” Id. … “[I]t is clearly established that ‘a consent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be limited, qualified, or withdrawn.’” Gates v. Tex.

Nahinu v. Naso

District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 30, 2023

Police officers and other state actors may be entitled to qualified immunity. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”).

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.

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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’

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

L.R. v. School District

60 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 20, 2014

doctrine of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps: “(1) whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Lyles v. Sparks

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

but also of federal law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred. … established, the district court erred in declining to afford Green and Krautheim qualified immunity from the surviving constitutional tort claims against them.

Thomas v. Murray

107 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 31, 2000

Murray contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established federal law. … clearly established in June 1996.

Nassau County Department of Social Services v. R.B.

23 Misc. 3d 270 · New York City Family Court · Dec 18, 2008

To qualify for an exemption respondent must first demonstrate that she holds a religious belief that is contrary to immunization. … The testimony of the DSS caseworker clearly established that the three children have never been immunized.

Mary D. Branch v. Officer Timothy Gorman

742 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2014

Qualified immunity is available to government officials who prove their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Officer Garbisch is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Waldrop v. Evans

681 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Mar 15, 1988

The Harlow decision defined the limits of qualified immunity in objective terms and instructed courts to consider only whether the official’s conduct in question violated clearly established law. … of qualified immunity. 5 B.

Brook Mallak v. Anthony Runde

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 19, 2016

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Coffin v. Brandau

614 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.9 On August 7, 2007, the Coffins lodged this appeal challenging the district court’s holding that no clearly established law provided fair warning to the Deputies … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door.15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.”

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so

Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.

679 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2012

The Iqbal Court concluded that whether a particular constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes presents an abstract issue of law that permits an appeal at the' dismissal stage. … established constitutional right); Winfield, 106 F.3d at 530 (recognizing jurisdiction over appeal of denial of qualified immunity insofar as district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted legal right was clearly