Case law

Williams v. Lopes

64 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 1999

Assuming this case involves clearly established rights, the entitlement to qualified immunity generally turns on the particular facts of a case. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d *42 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987). … The evidence before the Court clearly establishes that plaintiff cannot recall the events with any accuracy.

Singleton v. Doe

210 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants also argue that, irrespective of Plaintiffs liberty interest, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and not in violation of a clearly established right. (Id. at 8.) … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado

822 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

or qualified immunity. … Horwitz's license and refused to reinstate it until May 1, 1984, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of due process. Dr.

David v. Giurbino

488 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 16, 2007

“Clearly Established” Law The second prong of Saucier asks “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because Plaintiff has not shown the violation of a clearly established right under RLUIPA, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims for damages.

Simmons v. Poe

47 F.3d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 1, 1995

to qualified immunity. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “

David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

214 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Second, even if the arrest of Wadkins violated a clearly established constitutional right, Detective Arnold maintains that he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably; that is, a reasonable … See Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 316 (“[T]he most obvious possibility [of exceptional circumstances supporting qualified immunity despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right] is mistaken official advice

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

301 F. Supp. 3d 486 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 14, 2018

The Court went on to explain that neither Colburn I nor Colburn II clearly established such a right. Id. at 2045 . … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil *513 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Stokes v. City of Chicago

744 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 24, 1990

The standard for granting qualified immunity is well-established. … It is clearly established that the fourth amendment requires truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause. Franks v.

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

897 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Marley v. Crawford County, Arkansas

383 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields defendants “[f]rom liability for civil damages *1132 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 204-07, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity does not shield conduct which violates clearly established rights; inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening

398 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly’ established.” 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (original emphasis). … We stated in Buchholz, citing Drake, that “[i]f defendants prevail on [establishing that Buchholz has no cause of action], ‘it follows a fortiori’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 865.

Samaniego v. City of Kodiak

2 P.3d 78 · Alaska Supreme Court · May 19, 2000

The superior court set forth its view of Alaska's law of qualified immunity in a memorandum and ordered the parties to supplement their briefing. It then granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald 14 test for official immunity. 15 Under this standard, "the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts

Wagner v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

607 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 23, 1985

However, the Supreme Court has concluded that an immunity that was “well established at common law at the time § 1983 was enacted and ... … here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

Smith v. State of Ala.

996 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 27, 1998

Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The court will first determine if Smith’s rights under the equal protection clause were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.