Case law

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2000

provided qualified immunity from such a suit. … if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Charles Kaminski v. Brad Coulter

865 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

were not “clearly established” at the time that the violation occurred. … With respect to Clinton’s qualified-immunity defense, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “were clearly established” and that thus qualified immunity was unavailable.

Timberlake by Timberlake v. Benton

786 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 29, 1992

Qualified Immunity Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from liability in lawsuits brought under § 1983. Immunity, based upon an objective reasonableness standard, was established in Harlow v. … was so clearly in violation of constitutional law that he is unprotected by qualified immunity.

N.E., as Legal Guardian for Infant J v. v. State of

449 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 2017

Objective reasonableness will be established if the actor's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Gormley v. … A defendant who cannot establish that his or her conduct was objectively reasonable may still invoke qualified immunity if his or her actions were carried out in good faith.

Dejesus v. Village of Pelham Manor

282 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 2003

“Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Wilson v. … established federal law to rebut the defense of qualified immunity.

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

879 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

Qualified, Immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Buchanan v. Metz

647 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2016

’s conduct (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, which (2) is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known that the officer’s conduct violated that right. … Furthermore, any role that Metz may have had in advising Motley would be protected under qualified immunity, since we found that it is not clearly established that no reasonable officer would believe that a crime was being

Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County

972 F.2d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1992

actions violated clearly established rights. … Assuming the facts as Sims alleged them for the purposes of qualified immunity, the county officials' actions violated clearly established law and they are not entitled to qualified immunity. * Honorable Bailey Brown, Senior

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 15, 2014

Thus, the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether the right was clearly established at the time, must be considered. … for the purpose of establishing qualified immunity.

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

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

Gratz v. Bollinger

122 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2000

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … According to the Board, its actions must violate “clearly established legal principles” for its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated. (Id.) (emphasis in original).

Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

953 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity: Counts 9, 11, & 18 Defendant Miller asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity against each and every named plaintiff as to count 9, which alleges violations of Title III, and count 11, which … . *936 1996), in which the court summarily held that defendants have the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity at trial. Id. at 123 .

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

Figueroa v. Fernandez

921 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 15, 1996

Naturally, Plaintiffs must assert a violation of a clearly established constitutional right before they can even begin to defeat the Mayor’s motion for qualified immunity. Siegert v. … In addition, Plaintiffs’ compensatory damage claims against the Mayor fail to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. On these claims, the Mayor is protected by qualified immunity.

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

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.

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.

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

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.