Case law

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.

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

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.

State v. Dachtler

318 N.W.2d 769 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1982

Did the district court err when it ruled that Aaron Rash was qualified as an expert in glass comparison analysis? 2. … In this case, the State clearly had a reasonable explanation for refusing to produce Gray’s testimony through a request for immunity — the State believed that Gray was involved in the burglary, and the potential for charging

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

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

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.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Thomas v. Arnold

696 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2010

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Crooks Johnson held that an officer’s statement that he observed the plaintiffs car cross the center line was sufficient to establish probable cause and qualified immunity.

Commonwealth v. ELM Medical Laboratories, Inc.

33 Mass. App. Ct. 71 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1992

Because the qualified immunity of public officials is personal to the official, see Rodrigues v. … ”), even if established, it would not necessarily preclude the liability of the sovereign (in the absence of its immunity), if the jury were to find that Ridley and Frechette, with the protection of qualified immunity, violated

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

Sutton v. Tompkins County

617 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 25, 2007

Under federal law, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not *98 violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent … When qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. See Cecere, 967 F.2d at 829 .

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.

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.

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

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Werner v. Wall

836 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

Werner’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims for damages against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that AD 02-10 violated the constitutional … Because clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants in this case that the procedures set forth in AD 02-10 were unlawful, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Price v. Roark

256 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2001

If the allegations do not establish the violation of a constitutional right, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the allegations could make out a constitutional violation, we must ask whether the right was clearly established--that is, whether “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

We disagree. 9 "Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if " 'a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

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.