Case law

Fennell v. Simmons

951 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 3, 1997

right was not clearly established. … established, 7 so as to entitle the defendants to judgment on all of Torcasio’s claims of relief on the basis of qualified immunity.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Juan Angel Torres v. United States

200 F.3d 179 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 29, 1999

Ct. 2393 (1999). 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are`shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The inquiry when a defendant claims qualified immunity is "whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information in the officer's

Moran v. Greco

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2024

In denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the district court concluded that “[i]t is clearly established that officers may not gratuitously inflict pain in a manner that is not a reasonable response to … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), the doctrine of qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless he or she (1) “violated a constitutional [or federal statutory] right” that (2) “was clearly established

Berry v. Craftsman

148 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1977

The intent of this statute is clearly to establish immunity for all governmental bodies except in conformity with the statute, N. J. S. A. 59 :1-2. English v. Newark Housing Auth., 138 N. J. Super. 425, 428 (App. … A. 59 :1-2 clearly dictates that defendant may not be held liable.

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly *479 established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Colin A. Edwards v. Bryan C. Shanley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional … As a result, Officer Shanley cannot claim qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not know he was violating Edwards’s constitutional rights.5 In sum, we hold that clearly established federal law prohibits

Lisa Demaree v. John Krause

880 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 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 … established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what happened here violated the Demaree family’s Fourth

Stephen Buckley v. J. Michael Fitzsimmons

20 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

a particular right was not “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s acts because it was and is not “established” at all. … Thus there cannot be absolute immunity. But qualified immunity is available unless the acts violated “clearly established” constitutional norms. Harlow, 467 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 ; Anderson v.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX

274 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2001

, when based on an issue of (2) was clearly established at the time of the law.” … She under the same test federal courts employ for has not shown Gavito violated any constitu- qualified immunity determinations under tional right, much less one clearly established

Cierra Dunn v. John Does

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Unless he had arguable probable cause to seize the phones, he violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures of their property and is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith based on qualified immunity.

Chew v. Gates

744 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), grants qualified immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The question of whether a government official has qualified immunity for an action turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

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.

Marin Piazza v. Aponte Roque

668 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1987

Defendants claim qualified immunity from damages on the theory that they did not violate clearly established law. … We therefore hold that defendants’ conduct violated plaintiffs’ clearly established due process rights, and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

David Ayers v. City of Cleveland

773 F.3d 161 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2014

In the qualified-immunity context, an example of a purely legal issue is the determination of “what law was clearly established” at the time of the officials’ conduct. Ortiz, 131 S. Ct. at 891 (quoting Johnson v. … The Sykes court found dispositive the fact that the Rule 50(a) motion never mentioned “qualified immunity” or other terms associated with that defense (e.g., “clearly established law” or “objectively unreasonable actions”

Stanfield v. City of Lima

244 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2017

Nevertheless, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second inquiry, whether qualified immunity shields an officer from suit, depends on whether, at the time of the incident, “the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

Moore v. City of Ferguson

213 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 4, 2016

“Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Amrine v. … Qualified immunity determinations are based on a two-part inquiry.

Leonhardt v. Akron

2019 Ohio 5223 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. … We therefore conclude the trial court erred in finding Officers Sams and Smith were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶37} Dr.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .