Case law

Fernando Jacquez v. R.K. Procunier

801 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth stated, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” 472 U.S.

Ellsworth v. City of Lansing

34 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 16, 1998

In the absence of such clearly established law existing at the time of the incidents at issue in this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Regardless, however, such a right unquestionably was not clearly established in 1997. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

French v. City of Casey

361 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 9, 2019

"When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … But the absence of such an opinion does not preclude a finding that the law was clearly established and so the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1285 .

Schroeder v. McDonald

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

Arthur J. Cinelli v. Michael Cutillo and Robert Nunez

896 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 23, 1990

THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … concerning qualified immunity.

Fils v. City of Aventura

768 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2010

If he did, qualified immunity applies. … Thus, absent clearly established precedent condemning a factually similar type of arrest, a police officer can generally still claim qualified immunity based on arguable probable cause.

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under

Urban v. Henley

654 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 20, 1987

The Court has established an elaborate set of rules on immunity for both state and federal officers. … The law does not appear to have been clearly established on the claims made by the plaintiff since the plaintiff’s case was the first controversy involving these issues.

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”).

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering

173 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1999

which neither absolute nor qualified immunity is available. … , nor does it permit a reasonable inference that Jackson was sufficiently involved in this case such that he had reason to know that his conduct violated Mastroian-ni’s clearly established rights.

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.

Fisher v. Moore

62 F.4th 912 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 16, 2023

The school officials sought dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that the state-created danger doctrine was not clearly established in this circuit when the underlying events occurred. … “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 of which a reasonable

Lee v. Mihalich

847 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 17, 1988

In furtherance of these policies, the discriminant for qualified immunity focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official's acts under law which has been clearly established at the time he acts. … the violation of clear law needed to supply the malice element of the constitutional tort. 11 A government official will be denied qualified immunity for having violated a clearly established right when "in the light of

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 .

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.

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

Pinnock v. City of New Haven

553 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 14, 2008

“If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant. … Even if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action at issue

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