Case law

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

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.

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.

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Van Wyhe v. Reisch

536 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 2008

Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 , 632 (8th Cir.2001): Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … .. whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”

Cody v. Dane County

242 Wis. 2d 173 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 25, 2001

In this regard, Cody misapprehends the concept of qualified immunity in the § 1983 context. … The determinative legal question regarding qualified immunity is not whether Norwick reasonably believed his actions were lawful, but whether the law regarding Cody's rights was clearly established, such that "a reasonably

Gonzalez Perez v. Gomez Aguila

312 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 7, 2004

could not have believed that they were violating such clearly established constitutional rights. … complains violated clearly established law.”

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.

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Jose Padilla v. John Yoo

678 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2012

YOO tiffs’ RFRA claims on the basis of qualified immunity, hold- ing that RFRA’s application “to the military detention setting” was not clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tions. Id. at 560. … YOO Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because it was not clearly established in 2001-03 that the treatment to which Padilla says he was subjected amounted to torture.

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court

601 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 3, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a ‘constitutional right’ and (2) that the right Svas clearly established.’ ” Leary

Patino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

207 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2016

“[T]he 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, a reasonable … whether the constitutional right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

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.