Case law

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them … violated a clearly established right.”

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

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.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Remo Benigni, Dba the Silver Fox v. City of Hemet Roger Miller Jesse Pease Scott Jernigan

879 F.2d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY This question is properly before the court because the individual defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity and subsequently offered it as a ground for judgment NOV. … Thus we conclude that any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless.

Roes ex rel. Bazerman v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services

176 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2001

of qualified immunity. … Simply put, “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

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).

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?

Danley v. Allen

540 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

To 8 overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show a constitutional or statutory violation and also that the right violated was clearly established at the … Ct. at 1085. 18  Having established a constitutional violation, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis usually is to determine whether the right was clearly

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Kies Ex Rel. Kies v. City of Lima

612 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity Officers Ricker and Green assert qualified immunity in response to Kies’ § 1983 claims. … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

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.

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.’