-
496 F.3d 139 Second Circuit August 1, 2007 Nos. 04-5711-cv(L), 04-5943-cv(XAP)Cited by 414 Concurrence · Sotomayor
The portion of the majority’s qualified immunity discussion that I find objectionable reads as follows: “If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant.
Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. Wilson v.
In addition, by adding two steps to the qualified immunity analysis beyond whether the particular right was clearly established, the majority’s discussion of "arguable probable cause” further splinters our qualified immunity lest.
-
919 F.3d 165 Second Circuit March 20, 2019 Nos. 17-3564-cv; August Term 2018
It follows, and we have repeatedly held, that a state statute does not serve as "clearly established law" for purposes of qualified immunity.
The Lack of Clearly Established Law For qualified immunity to apply, it is sufficient that no clearly established law has held that "an officer acting under similar circumstances" violated an employee's due process rights.
And we conclude that, since Schwaller has not violated Tooly's clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
599 F.3d 129 Second Circuit March 16, 2010 No. 08-2529-cv
And because this principle has been clearly established since Loudermill , the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis would appear to be satisfied.
[5] The purpose behind the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis is to put defendants on notice that their conduct is unlawful.
establisheddraws on the three-step framework for qualified immunity that I believe is incorrect.
-
873 F.3d 162 Second Circuit September 29, 2017 No. 15-4124-cv
II “Qualified immunity protects officials from' liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim.
Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .
-
331 F.3d 93 Second Circuit May 30, 2003 No. 02-0169
Defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the test, because Hanrahan's right to due process protection was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations in 1997
It would defy logic to analyze qualified immunity, as defendants urge, in terms of unpredictable subsequent events, and courts have repeatedly declined to frame the clearly established inquiry through the "20/20 vision of hindsight
McBride, 323 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam). 6 We note that the extent to which district court decisions may be taken into account in evaluating whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes
-
390 F. App'x 22 Second Circuit August 13, 2010 No. 09-4532-CVCited by 4 Unpublished
A government official is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions unless his conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Pearson v.
The Second Circuit has held that a right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if “(1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court *24 or the- Second Circuit has recognized the right, and
Therefore, defendants-appellees are entitled to qualified immunity for those actions.
-
374 F. App'x 114 Second Circuit March 30, 2010 No. 09-1266-cvCited by 9 Unpublished
“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. In Pearson , the Supreme Court abandoned its previous holding in Saucier v.
Finally, Seri’s third theory also fails under the “clearly established constitutional right” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Because Seri cannot establish that Boch-icchio’s alleged conduct violated any “clearly established constitutional right,” Bochicchio is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
280 F.3d 69 Second Circuit November 1, 2000 No. 98-2249
immunity defense because Tellier failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
Specifically, defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the alleged violation, their actions as alleged by plaintiff violated no clearly established law.
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.
-
281 F. App'x 66 Second Circuit June 17, 2008 No. 06-3412-cv
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
If they do not, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .
“If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).
-
849 F.2d 778 Second Circuit June 20, 1988 No. 879
In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner's right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity was not
DISCUSSION 6 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit concerning acts undertaken in the course of their duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."
-
616 F.3d 100 Second Circuit August 11, 2010 No. 09-1451-cv
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that each defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the right that Scott asserts was violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged
“Clearly Established” Law after Earley.
established when they took place and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
-
246 F.3d 194 Second Circuit April 10, 2001 No. 00-7177
In support of their claim of qualified immunity, appellants argue that in 1995, the time of the seizure in this case, the law was not clearly established that probable cause was required to detain a police officer for questioning in
Fields, 230 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 2000). 15 The district court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment because (1) the law was "clearly established" at the time of the seizure that
I. 17 A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
-
968 F.3d 150 Second Circuit July 29, 2020 No. 19-1675
Officers Miller and Clarke contend that because their actions did not violate “clearly established law,” the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity at this juncture.
Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004), and because the undisputed facts do not support a violation of law that was clearly established at the time of Lennox’s arrest, Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.
to qualified immunity at this juncture.
-
163 F.3d 119 Second Circuit December 11, 1998 No. 96-9261
. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court’s conclusion that Greenwood’s property right in his clinical staff privileges was not *121 clearly established and that the
“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively reasonable
“Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the applicable
-
79 F.3d 265 Second Circuit March 21, 1996 No. 157
Thus, we need not reach the second prong of the qualified immunity test--the question whether the alleged conduct of Levine, Maslon, and Schwartz violated any of Shechter's clearly established rights, as the district court determined
ruling on the issue of qualified immunity must be affirmed for the reasons previously stated, we will not proceed to a definitive resolution of the "clearly established right" issue at this juncture.
As is apparent, however, the underlying issue of a constitutional violation will have to be considered anew on remand, whether under the "clearly established right" branch of the qualified immunity defense, or in determining the merits
-
959 F.2d 1174 Second Circuit March 19, 1992 No. 15-3961
Because the district court framed the qualified immunity question too generally, it wrongly concluded that the defendant officials’ alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. In doing so, the court erred.
Because it held that the defendants’ motive and conduct, if proven, violated clearly established rights, the district court rejected the defendants’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity.
The district court framed the qualified immunity question on this issue as whether “a citizen possessed a clearly established constitutional right not to have his speech regulated because the state actor disagreed with its content.
-
91 F. App'x 165 Second Circuit February 5, 2004 Nos. 02-9206(L), 02-9208(CON)
To establish qualified immunity in § 1983 claims, a defendant must show “either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action
If Toto did not violate Timmins’ constitutional rights on the “plaintiffs version of the facts,” Salim, 93 F.3d at 90 , then Toto did not violate clearly established law, is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, and the claims
Whatever rule Walsh established, that rule was not clearly established at the time of the chase. Toto is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Abromaitis, 294 F.3d at 360 .
-
135 F.4th 19 Second Circuit April 24, 2025 No. 22-2954
Zorn at bar only considered the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in determining that Sergeant Zorn is entitled to qualified immunity, we review it first. A.
Linton contends “that Amnesty America clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.” Appellant Br. at 30 n.8.
Town of West Hartford clearly established a right for qualified immunity purposes, consistent with our holding in Edrei v.
-
182 F.3d 89 Second Circuit June 17, 1999 No. 1998Cited by 137 Concurrence · Calabresi
Since, however, the unreasonableness of a probe like the one conducted in this case was not clearly established when Wilkinson was falsely labeled a child abuser and deprived of his children, qualified immunity applies and suffices
That is, we are all in agreement that, whether or not a constitutional violation occurred, the defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time the SRS investigation
Indeed, all statements about constitutional lights made in the Sacramento framework (i.e., where qualified immunity exists notwithstanding the violation of a right since the right was not clearly established at the time the conduct
-
19 F.3d 828 Second Circuit March 29, 1994 Nos. 784, Docket 93-7457Cited by 12 Dissent · Walker
The qualified immunity doctrine provides public officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or insofar
In reviewing the qualified immunity motion, the court did not address whether the state of the law was such that Michael had a clearly established right to a relationship with Elizabeth.
(“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. ”) (emphasis added).
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.