Case law

Don Meadows v. Rockford Housing Authority

861 F.3d 672 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

Qualified immunity protects state officials from liability for civil damages unless the plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … A right is clearly established when existing precedent has placed the right’s existence “beyond debate.” Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012).

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. The Township Of Warrington, Pa

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials' "conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Id. … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, we ask: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Massi v. Flynn

254 F. App'x 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 2007

Our jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine is limited to whether, as a matter of law, Flynn is entitled to qualified immunity “either because the law was not clearly established or because, on the facts assumed … Instead, we ask only “whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id. at 528 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 2806 .

Nassau County Employee "L" v. County of Nassau

345 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2004

“The *301 qualified immunity doctrine shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether a particular legal principle was ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity,” the Second Circuit has considered three factors: “whether the right was defined with reasonable specificity

Stanley Joseph v. Kenneth Allen

712 F.3d 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 15, 2013

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from suit if they “[did] not violate [a] clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gorra v. … However, qualified immunity allows officers to make reasonable errors, Habiger v.

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

Daryl L. Davis v. Barbara Knell

375 F.3d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 2004

“in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the actions were] taken.” … Clearly Established The second question that we must ask in our qualified immunity analysis is whether the constitutional right alleged to have been violated was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

Joseph v. Donahue

392 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, D. Maine · May 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action *984 unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts shown by the plaintiff establish "(1) that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the

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.

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

Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 15, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent." … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

Dehne v. City of Reno

222 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

In this appeal, Dehne objects to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Griffin. 1 Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of … If an official “could have believed, ‘reasonably but mistakenly ... that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,’ ” then qualified immunity applies. Skoog v.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

74 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff … at all' before reaching the possibly unnecessary question of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation of a "clearly established' right."). 5  To be clearly established, the

Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

806 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

immunity. 10 “[Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a … We therefore must determine whether Faul is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not violate clearly established law.

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.

Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty.

246 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2020

The Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The court found that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Turturro v. City of New York

77 A.D.3d 732 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 12, 2010

The City contended, among other things, that it was entitled to qualified immunity for highway planning decisions made after adequate studies. … While its summary judgment motion was pending, the City made a separate motion, inter alia, for leave to amend its answer to add a defense of qualified immunity.

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established