Case law

Daniels v. Delaware

120 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 29, 2000

In interpreting the Anderson approach to the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has *419 rejected a strict reading of Anderson which would require … However, the Hovater case is instructive on more than the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Mendoza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement

849 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are generally immune from civil liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must ask (1) whether the official's action violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the violated right was clearly established.

DeJesus v. Delaware

210 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 28, 2016

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To establish a case that overcomes qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts “showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

166 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … /Portland, 988 F.2d at 872 . 14 Although the counter-claimants have met the burden of showing the right at issue was clearly established, Rigby nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if she can show that a reasonable

Brandt v. City of Westminster

300 F. Supp. 3d 1259 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 19, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants Esslinger and Rush assert they are entitled to qualified immunity, "which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law … was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct."

Bennie F. Calhoun v. New York State Division of Parole Officers: J. McQuire Ted Clark R. White and G. Stern

999 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity The doetrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Since in these circumstances the constitutional right now claimed by Calhoun was not clearly established in the spring of 1985, defendants White and Stern were entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Shevlin v. Cheatham

211 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 7, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

697 F.3d 941 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officers “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 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Bloom v. Miami-Dade County

816 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 16, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … ’s actions violate clearly established law.”

Smith v. State of Ala.

996 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 27, 1998

Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The court will first determine if Smith’s rights under the equal protection clause were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry

421 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

We will, therefore, address this issue in our qualified immunity analysis. … Finally, we must determine "whether a 'reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated' the clearly established right at issue." Id.

Bostic v. Rodriguez

667 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2009

Under Pearson , the court next proceeds to the second step in the qualified-immunity framework: was this right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation? … Therefore, the right was not clearly established, and Rodriguez is entitled to qualified immunity.

Cockcroft v. Kirkland

548 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2008

Qualified Immunity. … The defense of qualified immunity 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

Narducci v. Village of Bellwood

444 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

If such a violation has taken place, the court must determine whether that right was “clearly established” (id). … Clearly Established Law Once a constitutional violation has been identified, the dispositive question for a qualified immunity defense is whether the law was “clearly established” when the official acted, such that a reasonable

Vassallo Ex Rel. K v. v. Lando

591 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 2008

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Second Circuit has held that under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “a right is clearly established if (1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the

Reyes-Reyes v. Toledo-Davila

860 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity, “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liabilityU” Hunter v. … Here, Benitez is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) “the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) such right was “ ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.