Case law

Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 15, 2006

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court in the state in which the case arose provide the case law capable of clearly establishing the boundaries of rights in the qualified immunity … Once these elements have been satisfactorily demonstrated, “there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense” because “the use of force ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ is clearly established to be a violation

Lee v. Arapahoe County

197 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 1, 1999

We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. … The final step in reviewing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Mr. Gibbs is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of Mr. Lee’s termination. Siegert v.

Howard Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees etc.

315 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Jones’s request for qualified immunity. All of the defendants appeal. Mr. … Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Dr. Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Mr.

Bennett v. Coffman

178 W. Va. 500 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1987

I It has long been established that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an assessment of damages against him in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that … The appellees in this case are therefore immune from damages unless they acted contrary to clearly established law as it existed at the time they entered Mr.

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity 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

Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

311 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

Although we conclude that the facts establish a constitutional violation, we believe the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759-60 , 107 S.Ct. 2672 , 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987) (qualified immunity dismissal of § 1983 claim where constitutional violation found but right was not clearly established precludes § 1988 award of attorney

Mitchell v. Street

415 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Finally, Defendant Mayor Street asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary functions.” Lodato v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. Thus, the Court held in Procunier v. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail,” unless the defendant “claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Pabon v. Wright

459 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 3, 2006

Because this right was not clearly established in this circuit when Pabon was diagnosed with and treated for Hepatitis C, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to all Defendants on qualified-immunity grounds … According to this second inquiry, a qualified-immunity defense will be successful either when the defendants’ actions did not violate clearly established law or when it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe

Barbera v. Smith

836 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Qualified Immunity Prosecutors are entitled to qualified immunity from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Yet, unless it was clearly established in 1981-82 that the government owed a duty of protection to someone in Barbera’s position, qualified immunity will insulate Schlessinger’s actions.

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

683 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1987

The Court now briefly elaborates on the claims of qualified immunity. … In Harlow the Supreme Court recognized that governmental officials may be entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

William Hurt v. Matthew Wise

880 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

of  clearly  established  law.  … Even if, in hindsight, it appears that probable cause  was lacking, qualified immunity is still available if the arrest‐ ing officers “reasonabl[y] … could have believed the arrest to  be  lawful,  in  light  of  clearly 

Baumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind

425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006

. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Huddleston v. Maurry

841 S.W.2d 24 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 2, 1992

To establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a movant must show that: 1. he pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; 2. his position with the government enjoys a quasi-judicial status; 3. he was … In responding to an emergency they still were required to obey the safety standards established in article 6701d. We conclude that the officers have not established, as a matter of law, a basis for qualified immunity.

Baddour, Inc. And Bmc Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. United States of America, Michael E. Posey

802 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1986

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (emphasis added). … In this case and on these facts the plaintiff clearly has not done so. 3 Were Baddour’s failure to overcome Posey’s qualified immunity defense not enough, the damages suit against Posey could have been dismissed for failure

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Krug, for his part, challenges the district court’s conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Sybil Hernandez v. Brett Jarman

340 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

In this case, if Hernandez's allegations fail to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Jarman and Tarrell will be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. See Saucier v. … Accordingly, Jarman is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct because the facts as alleged by Hernandez fail to state a violation of Six Feathers's clearly established constitutional rights.

Greenaway v. County of Nassau

97 F. Supp. 3d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at 289 . … .-, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (noting that courts evaluating qualified immunity must “draw[] inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the