Case law

Cromartie v. Billings

Supreme Court of Virginia · Jan 16, 2020

The court in Smith held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. These cases are sufficiently similar to Cromartie’s to constitute clearly established law. … and qualified immunity.

Bradley v. Village of Greenwood Lake

376 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Doyle v. Dukakis

699 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The Court need not rest its decision on such a broad determination, however, in light of the qualified immunity from suit available to these defendants. In Harlow v. … The Supreme Court wrote that if a judge, on summary judgment, determines that “the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public

Isquierdo v. Frederick

922 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 22, 1996

“does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiffs rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned

Wadith Nader v. City of Papillion

917 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

On that claim, the district court found: (1) Svajgl and Iversen were entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Hessig was entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity; (3) Lyons and Polikov were entitled to qualified … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Daniel Anthony Miller v. Prince George's County, Maryland, a Body Corporate and Politic John L. Dougans

475 F.3d 621 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 22, 2007

Accordingly, we turn to the second element of Saucier — whether the violated right was clearly established at the time of the events in question. If the right was not clearly established, Det. … Dougans still enjoys qualified immunity from liability on this claim. Qualified immunity “operates ‘to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.’ ” Hope v.

Ellis v. White

156 N.C. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2003

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Therefore, ruling on a defense of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and

KRL v. Estate of Moore

512 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Although our prior decision granted Riebe qualified immunity, it denied qualified immunity for Hall.

Gallardo v. DiCarlo

203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

Kade v. Workie

238 F. Supp. 3d 625 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 27, 2017

actions are protected by qualified immunity if she can show that the ‘offending’ conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, setting aside the issue as to whether Defendant could even assert the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs constitutional right is clearly established in light of the established law.

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Sorrells v. Gattison

644 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 1986

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1981), the Supreme Court redefined the qualified immunity doctrine. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 815-16 , 102 S.Ct. at 2736-37 .

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Second, regarding defendant Quick’s claims of absolute immunity, plaintiff argues that immunity is only warranted where officials “can prove that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must ask whether the official engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of a person of which

Ford v. Anderson County

102 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2024

of qualified immunity. … This court’s unpublished opinions cannot clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity, but they nevertheless may “aptly illustrate[] the established right.” Cooper v.

Jeffrey Davis v. Bim Lowers

132 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).2 Qualified immunity protects from liability government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The burden then shifts to Davis to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. The threshold inquiry is whether Davis’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

Manzanillo v. Lewis

267 F. Supp. 3d 1261 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 12, 2017

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether -the plaintiff has. alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was “clearly established.” Pearson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants Lewis, Hallock, Wood, and McGuyer also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Dowling v. Hannigan

995 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1998

Defendant asserts that he is also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields defendant from pecuniary lability unless he violated “clearly established” constitutional or statutory norms. … Summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Lt.

Williams v. Ballard

466 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

I The district court concluded that qualified immunity shielded defendants, precluding damages, because Williams’s right to procedural due process was not a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … This makes sense, given the different goals of AEDPA and qualified immunity.

Ex Parte Turner

840 So. 2d 132 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 21, 2002

and qualified immunity. … Turner's affidavit provides uncontroverted sworn statements that sufficiently establish qualified immunity from the § 1983 action.

Dillberg v. County of Kitsap

76 F. App'x 792 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 2003

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Jeffers v. … Nevertheless, qualified immunity is available for any such constitutional violation because Dillberg’s right not to be prosecuted for attempted solicitation of murder was not clearly established.