Case law

Zann v. Whidby

904 F. Supp. 2d 1229 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 24, 2012

To avoid summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … Was the Right Clearly Established?

Housing Works, Inc. v. Giuliani

56 F. App'x 530 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

right to be free from such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) if the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time it was taken … established and consequently, a defendant against such a claim is entitled to qualified immunity.

Trust & Investment Advisors, Inc. v. Hogsett

830 F. Supp. 463 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 8, 1993

TIA argues that neither are the defendants entitled to qualified immunity, because Count One is for declarative and injunctive relief and Dant had to have known that she was violating TIA’s clearly established rights. … TIA has failed to allege facts which, if proven, would demonstrate that Dant’s actions were objectively unreasonable or violated TIA’s clearly established rights. Dant is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Dennis J. Domegan v. Michael v. Fair

859 F.2d 1059 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 20, 1988

The defense is unavailable when an official has violated a “clearly established” right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … If plaintiff’s right to be free from the claimed harm was clearly established — and in this case, we think that is so — then the defendants do not enjoy Harlow immunity. See, e.g., Bonitz, 804 F.2d at 166-68 .

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al.

2018 DNH 096 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 15, 2018

“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct 21 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity. In Foster v.

Scheuerman v. City of Huntsville, Al

499 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 23, 2007

Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263 , 1268 *1215 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ). 84 In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, district courts are to consider only the “clearly established law and … The law can be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose.”

Harris v. DeBellis

658 F. App'x 940 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 2016

Because De-Bellis asserts qualified immunity, however, we may first consider whether DeBellis violated clearly established law. … Under the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity analysis, DeBellis is entitled to summary judgment unless Harris can identify a genuine issue of fact regarding whether DeBellis had arguable probable cause to

Connor v. Foster

833 F. Supp. 727 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 1993

Public officials are immune from liability for monetary damages under § 1983 if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Qualified immunity, of course, bars only Con-nor's claim for damages.

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. v. Town Of East Hampton

192 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

After reciting the principle that government officials in their personal capacities are immune from suits for money damages where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … violated any clearly established constitutional or federal rights. 21 Qualified immunity serves important interests in our political system.

Mahoney v. Hankin

844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue." … The Mitchell court "emphasize[d] ... that the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Goldsmith v. Snohomish County

558 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 15, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit). Saucier established a two-step analysis of qualified immunity. … At step two, immunity attaches if the officer was reasonably mistaken and/or if the constitutional right was not clearly established. 1.

Jackson v. Curry Cnty.

343 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 1, 2018

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Qualified Immunity As noted above, Curry County Defendants move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Gilmore-Bey v. Coughlin

929 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 1996

The defendants clearly are entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken prior to the effective date of the statute, November 16, 1993. As found in Woods v. … Therefore, the law cannot be said to have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct underlying this action, and the defendants are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

McMORROW v. LITTLE

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that McMorrow's claim must be dismissed. … immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Browning v. Snead

886 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 17, 1995

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994) our Court of Appeals discussed generally the application of qualified immunity as follows: “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Goodrich v. Everett

193 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2006

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity. The district court applied the two-prong test for qualified immunity set forth in Saucier v. … “When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiffs burden to prove that the state officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.2005).

Shevlin v. Cheatham

211 F. Supp. 2d 963 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 7, 2002

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … immunity because he violated clearly established rights.

Daniels v. Delaware

120 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 29, 2000

In interpreting the Anderson approach to the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has *419 rejected a strict reading of Anderson which would require … However, the Hovater case is instructive on more than the “clearly established right” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

DeJesus v. Delaware

210 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 28, 2016

Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To establish a case that overcomes qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts “showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of

D.Z. Ex Rel. Thompson v. Buell

796 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Neither party disputes that D.Z.’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established at the time of the incident.