Case law

Bennie F. Calhoun v. New York State Division of Parole Officers: J. McQuire Ted Clark R. White and G. Stern

999 F.2d 647 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity The doetrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Since in these circumstances the constitutional right now claimed by Calhoun was not clearly established in the spring of 1985, defendants White and Stern were entitled to qualified immunity.

Leopardi v. Township of Maple Shade

363 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2003

Potentially liable parties, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity claims involve a two-step analysis.

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Siefert v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

354 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 15, 2018

"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 of which a reasonable person … Williams-Ash , this Court cannot conclude that County Defendants have violated a clearly established procedural due process right. The County Defendants therefore are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. c.

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Peggy Boardman, Jeffrey P. Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bell

91 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1996

As the district court noted, qualified immunity was therefore available as a complete defense. … The district court properly applied the defense of qualified immunity here.

Maureen Tierney, for Herself and as Mother of Philip T. Newton, Patrick J. Newton v. Joel R. Davidson Thomas E. Williams, State of Vermont

133 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established 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 action did not violate such law

Clara Cheeks v. Mark Jakob

80 F.4th 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2023

of clearly established law.” … As the Supreme Court has often reminded us, defeating qualified immunity requires a constitutional rule that was “clearly established,” not just “suggested by . . . precedent.” City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S.

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dixon v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 11, 2020

However, even if the alleged sexual harassment arguably could reach such a level, the Correctional Defendants would 11 be entitled to qualified immunity, because there is no clearly … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (stating that “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established

Hewitt v. Grabicki

596 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 1984

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct.

Abilio Hernandez v. Jason Boles

949 F.3d 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2020

We therefore turn to whether the law was clearly established. 2. Clearly Established Right This brings us to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. … But, to overcome qualified immunity, the clearly established law must be specific enough “to put a reasonable officer on notice that the conduct at issue was unconstitutional.” Lewis, 779 F.3d at 417.

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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

George Hedges v. George Randy Poletis

177 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Due Process Claim Hedges had clearly established due process rights.