Case law

Prisma Zona Exploratoria De Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Calderon

154 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 14, 2001

Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity grounds. The motion to dismiss stands submitted. … Determination of whether a reasonable official should have understood that a specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, or whether an entity is to be considered an “arm of the state”, are fact intensive

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity. 24 Therefore, the complaint states

Rene Tellier v. Sharon Fields

230 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Horne supports the need to address the constitutional question when a court finds that qualified immunity does not exist because the right asserted is clearly established.

SER City of Bridgeport v. Hon. John Lewis Marks, Jr., Judge

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 27, 2014

“The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. … City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), absolute statutory immunity, like qualified immunity, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that “is effectively lost if the case is

Clark v. Donahue

885 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 27, 1995

were not clearly established at the time in question. … Accordingly, whether a right was sufficiently clearly established for purposes of invoking qualified immunity is a question of law. Marshall, 984 F.2d at 793 .

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

John Doe, as Next Friend of Jane Doe, a Child v. Hillsboro Independent School District, Larry Zabcik

81 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 1996

the grounds for denying a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity: “(a) a determination about pre-existing ‘clearly established’ law, or (b) a determination about ‘genuine’ issues of fact for trial.” 15 The … given facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Hill v. Walsh

884 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 2018

Because the law on the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was not clearly established at the time of the incident, we uphold the district court's entry of judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court also noted that even if the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, they had a "strong case" that they were entitled to qualified immunity because "there is no clearly established Supreme

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.

Burke v. Town of Walpole

405 F.3d 66 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 26, 2005

Shea, and Trooper McDonald should receive qualified immunity on the ground that their conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. See Burke, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24897, at *25 (Det. … Bausch to be one of the officers who arrested Burke and reach his qualified immunity defense. 23 The other police defendants raise no argument about the absence of clearly established law.

Robinson v. City of West Allis

239 Wis. 2d 595 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2000

When faced with the defense of qualified immunity the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a defendant's conduct violated " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … While it is clearly established that an individual has a right to be free from excessive force, our qualified immunity inquiry must be much more particularized as to the facts of each case. Anderson v.

Gomez Candelaria v. Rivera Rodríguez

218 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … Accordingly, they argue that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established”.

John Burns v. Brad Cole

18 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 29, 2021

-4-  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

Hart v. Artus

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 2021

Next, Plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply to any of the defendants, since the constitutional rights which Plaintiffs allege were violated were all clearly established, such that a reasonable defendant … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Whether Weydert and Coffey are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 6 1. Grounds for Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that MUAs are legal. … Weydert and Coffey are “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show” their actions *1115 violated the Constitution. Pearson v.

Dale E. Kraus and Rosetta M. Kraus, Husband and Wife Cindy D. Kraus, Individually and Todd W. Montgomery, Individually v. County of Pierce

793 F.2d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1986

The Supreme Court has noted, however, that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability____” Mitchell v. … According to the test for qualified immunity established by the Supreme Court, the deputies in this case are immune from liability (and trial) if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional