Case law

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.

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.

Olzinski v. MacIona

714 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 7, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the claims for money damages because they “could not have reasonably known that their conduct violated any well established … Once the issue of qualified immunity is properly injected into a case by a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the allegedly “clearly established” constitutional right

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."

McCray v. Lee

963 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

They argued that the Complaint failed to state a claim under the 2 Eighth Amendment; that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that 3 no such Eighth Amendment rights had been clearly established; … Qualified immunity shields 2 officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 4 would

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

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).

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.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

“On review of a denial of qualified immunity, ‘[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant’s conduct violated ... clearly established [law].’ ” Pelletier v. … “[S]pecifie binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.” Maraziti, 953 F.2d at 525 , quoting Brady v.

Kipps v. Caillier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps's clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.

Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama

67 F.4th 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2023

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … “Second, the plaintiff must show that the violation was clearly established.” Id. (emphasis and quotation marks omitted).

Justice v. Town of Blackwell

820 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 29, 1987

he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the Town and Henkel contend that Cronin forfeited his qualified immunity by violating clearly established Wisconsin election law, Wis.Stats. § 6.92 et seq.

Friedman v. Weiner

515 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1981

A review of the cases suggests that the individual defendants, if entitled to any immunity, are entitled at most to qualified immunity. … Where a public official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the defendant to raise the defense and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Lovell v. Comsewogue School District

214 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity In two sentences, the defendants argue that Defendant Rella’s conduct is shielded by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee

915 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

We review orders denying qualified immunity de novo, Stoudemire v. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to look to whether the officials’ acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.