Case law

Rivera v. Senkowski

62 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 8, 1995

Finally, the district court rejected defendants' defense of qualified immunity as to the retaliation claim since (1) the constitutional right against retaliation had been clearly established by 1990 and (2) defendants' acts … Appellate Jurisdiction 12 The affirmative defense of qualified immunity "shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Bond v. Nikki

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 6, 2021

court next must decide whether the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Counseling Ctr., 987 F.2d 397, 408-09 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussing relevant case law in context of assessing whether law was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes)).

Brayshaw v. Gelber

232 N.J. Super. 99 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1989

We acknowledged that this qualified immunity was subject to N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a as are all Tort Claims Act immunities. … therefore, she was entitled to a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3.

Frederick Allen v. Roy Cooper

895 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

In doing so, the district court explained that these defendants were not protected by qualified immunity because “the law of [copyright] infringement is clearly established.” … 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 person would have known.’” Mullenix v.

Mangieri v. Clifton

29 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 24, 1994

A police officer is entitled to claim the cloak of qualified immunity "unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Spann v. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right. See Beck v.

Cugini v. City of New York, Palazzola

941 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 25, 2019

It granted the defendantsʹ motion for summary judgment, however, on the ground that Palazzola was entitled to qualified immunity because his behavior did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional … However, because at the time of the plaintiffʹs arrest Palazzolaʹs actions did not violate clearly established constitutional law, the district court correctly concluded that his actions were protected by qualified immunity

JOHN W. WALKER, — v. CITY OF PINE BLUFF, —

414 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 21, 2005

Grace is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have kndwn. Harlow v. … probable cause ... that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiffs clearly established right.”

Smith v. Ciesielski

975 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

In particular, the statute provides officials qualified immunity for “[t]he performance of a discretionary function.” Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(7). … As with common law qualified immunity under Section 1983, an official’s conduct does not merit exemption from suit if it “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should

Tortu v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

556 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2009

’ qualified immunity claims. … The determination of qualified immunity at step two is strictly a legal question of whether, even though the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a constitutional violation, that constitutional right was not clearly established

Susan Fisler Silberstein v. City of Dayton

440 F.3d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Whether Silberstein’s First Amendment rights were clearly established Having found that no First Amendment violation occurred, we need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Asten v. City of Boulder

652 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Compton and Frenzen assert a qualified immunity defense to Ms. Asten’s claims against them individually. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Henry S. Kijonka v. Michael Seitzinger

363 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2004

We cannot find a reported Illinois case that found the elements of assault satisfied in any case remotely like this one, and this dooms Rietz’s defense of qualified immunity. … Kirksey, 885 F.2d 476, 478 (8th Cir.1989), but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

Heflin v. Stewart County

958 F.2d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 9, 1992

The defendants now argue that the court should have submitted their qualified immunity defense to the jury. That is clearly not the law. We stated in Poe v. … Haydon, 853 F.2d 418, 424 (6th Cir.1988), that “[resolution of qualified immunity is purely a question of law.”

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

563 U.S. 731 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 31, 2011

(a) Qualified immunity shields a government official from money damages unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct … Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law and thus is enti tled to qualified immunity.

Ladd v. Thibault

402 F. App'x 618 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2010

DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 “Government actors have qualified immunity to § 1983 claims 17 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 18 established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, “[a] qualified immunity defense is 23 established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate 24 clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively 25 reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action

Eddie O. Buckley, Jr. v. Russell Rogerson, Warden Imcc Paul W. Loeffelholz, M.D.

133 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 21, 1998

DISCUSSION Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from suit unless the conduct complained of violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As we have noted in previous cases, this court has taken a “broad view” of what constitutes clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. at 677.

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

258 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

WMATA’s first argument—that there is no statute, regulation, or policy on point—is clearly unavailing. … rely on “SSOP 46 alone” to establish this standard.

Behrens v. Pelletier

516 U.S. 299 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 21, 1996

On the merits of the appeal, the court rejected the argument that petitioner enjoyed qualified immunity because he had not violated any “clearly established right.” … allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects 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.” … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[The defendant] violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated [the plaintiff] for exercising her free speech rights.”).

Conrad Noyola v. Texas Department of Human Resources

846 F.2d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 15, 1988

Second, if the first amendment rights were not “clearly established” at the time Noyola was terminated, 1 Appellants may defend on the basis of qualified official immunity from suit. … Consequently, Appellants could not have violated any “clearly established constitutional rights,” and they are protected by qualified immunity from suit. III.