Case law

Jones v. Dalton

867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.

Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Peter Wenk v. Edward O'Reilly

783 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

of qualified immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerns not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but whether certain alleged facts reflect a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Altman v. City of High Point

330 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2003

immunity analysis and determine whether the right was clearly established. … It is certainly true that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates clearly established federal law.

Crosby v. University of Kentucky

863 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ,.. from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The closest precedent in this circuit, in fact, noted that this area of law was not so clearly established as to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Garvie v.

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity 9 Because many of the relevant facts were in dispute, the district court submitted the qualified immunity determination to the jury. 3 The jury rejected Hale's claim to qualified immunity. … The determination of qualified immunity 11 necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so "clearly established" as to alert

Chevallier v. Hand

884 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 2012

Because an “in the presence” requirement for a warrantless police arrest on a misdemeanor offense is “far from clearly established,” according to the Eighth Circuit, the question of whether Defendant is entitled to qualified … If Defendant had probable cause to arrest, under the circumstances, his actions would receive qualified immunity. Veatch, 627 F.3d at 1259 .

Portera v. State of Ala. Dept. of Finance

322 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2004

Where the law that the government employee allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offpnse, the employee is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Thus, the remaining issue under the qualified-immunity analysis is whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law. 16 *1296 To determine whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law, the court

Caygill v. Jablonski

78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992

R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.

Lopez v. Modisitt

488 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 4, 1980

a qualified immunity. … Likewise, this Court is not satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity in the instant case can summarily be established.

Jefferson v. Ysleta Independent School District

817 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 1987

Finding that the pleadings allege conduct which “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v. … Analysis The defense of qualified immunity protects a public official from liability in the performance of his duties unless he violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of another known to or knowable

Dingwell v. Cossette

327 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 7, 2018

Qualified Immunity: Police Chief Cossette and Detective Williams Qualified immunity must be decided "at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Hunter v. … K-H Corp. , 968 F.2d 1489 , 1494 (2d Cir. 1992) ). *476 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Amundsen v. Jones

533 F.3d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2008

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of -6- the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even … was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Simms v. Constantine

113 Md. App. 291 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 29, 1997

Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not. 500 U.S. at 495 , 111 S.Ct. at 1944 (citations omitted). … Fitzgerald (1982), we "completely reformulated qualified immunity,” replacing the common-law subjective standard with an *314 objective standard that allows liability only where the official violates "clearly established

Barron v. Public Health Trust of Dade County

22 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 21, 1998

Miller, 57 F.3d 986, 991-93 (11th Cir.1995) (reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that transferring employees, … entitled to qualified immunity.

Wilson Smith v. Officer Troy Taff

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known. Henderson v. … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Campbell v. Alameida

295 F. App'x 130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 24, 2008

The district court properly determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Campbell’s Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims for damages, because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law. … City of Alameda, 525 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir.2008) (“Under the defense of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from civil damages unless his conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable

Ramirez-Lluveras v. Pagan-Cruz

833 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine is an “escape hatch” from a state actor’s liability under section 1983. … A state actor does not benefit from qualified immunity if: (1) the plaintiff makes out a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Fortunati v. Campagne

681 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. Vermont · Dec 29, 2009

Under qualified immunity doctrine, government actors are not liable for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Judge Sessions recently laid out the second step as follows: The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officials’ actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional lights of which