Case law

Parks v. Warren Correctional Institution

51 F. App'x 137 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

allegedly infringed was “clearly established[.]” … cannot review the issue 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.

William Cass v. City of Dayton

770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.

García-Díaz v. Cintrón-Suárez

120 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 23, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public 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 … As such, the court focuses on the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.

Kent v. Katz

327 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 20, 2004

Under both federal and state law, a qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … In sum, Kent has not established that he is entitled to JMOL on either excessive force or qualified immunity. II.

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

Branch International Services, Inc. v. Budde

890 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 15, 1995

Alleging the violation of a broad constitutional right is insufficient to establish the violation of a clearly established right for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs argue, in their response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, that the right to access to courts was a clearly established constitutional right, and therefore the qualified immunity defense is not applicable to this

López-Quiñones v. Puerto Rico National Guard

526 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 21, 2008

Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), and that in any event, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any such protection was not clearly established at the time of Lopez’ termination … Still remaining is the question whether his status was clearly established at the time of his termination.

Evans v. City of Zebulon

351 F.3d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2003

Stephens is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because as of January 22, 1999, the law was not clearly established that an arrestee could not constitutionally be strip searched under the conditions alleged. … Only decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court of the relevant state clearly establish the law for purposes of qualified immunity. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032 n. 10. .

Brindley v. Best

192 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

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 or constitutional … clearly established rights.

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established 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.

Dawkins v. Graham

50 F.3d 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 14, 1995

Qualified immunity does not shield the officers from a lawsuit for damages if a reasonable officer would have known the officers’ actions violated clearly established law. Hummel-Jones v. … First, the law prohibiting the officers’ conduct was clearly established at the time of the raid.

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

Nahinu v. Naso

District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 30, 2023

Police officers and other state actors may be entitled to qualified immunity. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. … statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”).

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.

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