Case law

Hare Ex Rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

135 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 5, 1998

The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s … The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident;

Husain v. Springer

336 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 2, 2004

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

864 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1994

violated a clearly established constitutional right defined in Wide-man he is not entitled to qualified immunity. *1337 Applying the test enumerated in Courson v. … Lacking a clearly established right the Courson test cannot be satisfied, and so Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Hayes v. Terrance Howard

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 23, 2021

Qualified immunity defense is thus “an immunity from suit rather than a mere 4 Alvarez v. … Once qualified immunity is asserted, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established

Burke v. Twp. of Cheltenham

742 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2010

Federal “qualified immunity” has been established by case law, Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Geoffrey J. Waldau v. Merit Systems Protection Board

19 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Mar 16, 1994

Such a case exists when a petitioner raises nonfrivolous allegations of controverted jurisdictional facts on which the MSPB’s jurisdiction is clearly established if these facts are proven. See, e.g., Burgess v. … It is clearly not for this court on appeal to consider for the first time the evidence of record to determine whether Waldau qualifies as a confidential employee.

Walter v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s 12 conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. [Citation omitted.]” Id. at 232. 13 In Saucier v. … Because the law was clearly 7 established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 8 9 D.

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George Pickett

586 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been “clearly established.”

Santana v. Calderon

188 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.

Nieto v. San Perlita Independent School District

894 F.2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

the plaintiff’s clearly established right to protected speech. … Consequently, the defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right secured to Nieto. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal from this suit.

Donahoe v. Arpaio

869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2012

. § 1983 , 11 qualified immunity protects a government official from suit where that official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … of free speech rights [is] violative” of clearly established law).

Flynn v. City of Santa Clara

388 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, N.D. California · May 22, 2019

However, viewpoint discrimination is barred under clearly established First Amendment law. … Alcarez but, even if not, at the very least, qualified immunity protects the individual officers as there was no clearly established law holding that defense of others is a legal defense to a § 148(a)(1) violation. III.

Ruffino v. Sheahan

61 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation occurred and that the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Erwin v.

Solis-Alarcon v. United States

432 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory authority or con *246 stitutional … understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue.

McIntyre v. United States

336 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The defense of qualified immunity applies unless the law is clearly established either by materially similar precedent or by general legal principles that apply with obvious clarity to the facts of the case. Hope v.

Foster v. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services

736 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 13, 2013

was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." … We conclude that placing Essie Foster on the disqualification list in these circumstances was not a deprivation of the Fosters' clearly established due process rights and that Hansen and Watkins are thus entitled to qualified

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Chadwell v. Brewer

59 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 2, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was “clearly established” when the violation occurred.

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory