Case law

Howes v. Hitchcock

66 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 1999

conduct violated clearly established law.” … To prevail on their qualified immunity defense, the officers must first establish that a prudent police officer with the information they collectively possessed reasonably could have believed that probable cause to arrest

Jarovits v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

345 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

The Bayer Court held that “under the ‘clearly established’ prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to [the plaintiffs’ procedural due process] claim.” … qualified immunity.

Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

473 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2007

If a constitutional violation is found, the second inquiry of qualified immunity is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established enough that it “would be clear to a reasonable [state official] that his conduct … Clear to a Reasonable Officer The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test asks whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established enough at the time of the violation that it “would be clear to a

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth

424 Mass. 176 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 3, 1997

Government officials are normally protected only by a qualified immunity, and those officials seeking an absolute exemption from personal liability must show that public policy requires an immunity of that scope. … In Chicopee Lions Club, supra at 251, we established that the scope of prosecutorial immunity under G. L. c. 12 is “at least as broad as under § 1983.” See Rodriques v.

Nicole Klum v. City of Davenport

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2025

Plaintiffs next argue the undisputed evidence establishes the district court erred by granting Officer Roth qualified immunity. … We conclude that any right was not clearly established at the time and therefore Officer Roth is entitled to qualified immunity.

Laura Ann Juriss v. Paul McGowan and Russell Stanfield, Jointly and Severally

957 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 1992

In evaluating this argument, we examine whether the right McGowan allegedly violated was “clearly established in a particularized sense.” Cleveland-Perdue v. … We therefore reject his first argument for qualified immunity.

Jeremy Graber v. Michael Boresky

59 F.4th 603 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 10, 2023

In cases implicating qualified immunity, similarly, whether “a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law cannot be decided in isolation from the facts pleaded.” … And qualified immunity analysis looks to precedent for law enshrining “clearly established” rights. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam).

Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

796 F.3d 435 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Bosarge must plead that the agents violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pearson v. … The agents are entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under Rehberg.

Joseph McNeil John Blankenship, Kevin O'DOnnell and United States of America

187 F.3d 263 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

In denying that motion, the district court noted that to establish immunity from suit, the FAA officials must demonstrate that the right that plaintiff claims was violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the … Neither did it examine whether any such rights were clearly established at the time of the investigation.

Nicholas C. Omdahl, Roger C. Omdahl, and Linda Omdahl v. David E. Lindholm and Michael G. Stoffel

170 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1999

It is also the key dispute as to whether the Omdahls established the existence of an alleged constitutional violation and, thus, whether they can successfully refute the qualified immunity defense. … The qualified immunity defense places the burden of establishing the existence of the alleged constitutional violation on the Omdahls. See Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Robert Wilkerson v. Richard Stalder

774 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. … Adequacy of Process We hold that Woodfox has a clearly established liberty interest.

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

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.

Johnson v. Wright

423 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2005

Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 . … Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. See, e.g., Id.; Herren v.

Apffel v. Huddleston

50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Utah · May 27, 1999

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity spares Defendants the burden of proceeding with the litigation unless Plaintiff can show that Defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ 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

Wormley v. United States

601 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

is not clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jabbar-El v. Sullivan

811 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 30, 1992

Restated this means that a defendant has “qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Id. at 650 . Allegations of malice on the part of the defendant will not defeat the defense.

Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231

138 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 6, 2015

’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the. official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 62 Accordingly, the. qualified immunity defense must be resolved “at the … Defendants are not .entitled to qualified immunity on Gilhaus’ due process property interest claim because the facts as alleged demonstrate that Defendants violated Gilhaus’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Paul Donald Davis v. Paul Waller

44 F.4th 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2022

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show first, that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right and, second, that the right was “clearly established.” Corbitt v. … But I concur in Part II.E’s conclu- sion that Waller did not violate any clearly established law and therefore was entitled to qualified immunity. The majority opinion accurately recounts the facts of the case.