Case law

The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport

906 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

And he maintained that no authority clearly established that Davenport’s actions were unconstitutional. … On the contrary, the Court has explained that “[t]he conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that ‘where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not

Von Derhaar v. Stalbert

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

“[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff's version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry demands plaintiff demonstrate there was a clearly established right at the time of the challenged action.

Yates v. Stalder

217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

United States v. Murdock

284 U.S. 141 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 23, 1931

, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a. state immunity statute. … The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness, to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule agáinst compulsory self-incrimination

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District

877 F.3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 7, 2017

“clearly established.” … The court further concluded that the defendants who issued the notices were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that such an absolute prohibition of challenges the ban based on its absolute

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Harris County v. Nagel

349 S.W.3d 769 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Oct 5, 2011

Identification of the clearly established law is not a question of fact to be established by evidence. … This would not be qualified immunity, but absolute immunity.

(PC) King v. Biter

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 6 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of 17 Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to 18 meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

Jones v. Muniz

349 F. Supp. 3d 377 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 2018

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials when performing discretionary functions, *383 such as arrests, "from liability for civil damages" if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law, asking whether the right at issue was "clearly established in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must

Nina J. Lechiara v. Gary M. Gaskins Kenneth L. Gorby Stephen R. Dolly Geraldine Floyd

866 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 23, 1989

Second, each of the defendants was immune from Sec. 1983 liability for his actions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (magistrates' judicial immunity); Imbler v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (state trooper's qualified immunity for actions not violative of clearly established rights of which reasonable person would know). 3 For the above reasons the district court's dismissal

Walsingham v. Dockery

671 So. 2d 166 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 21, 1996

concerned whether certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1563 (11th Cir.1994) ("the issue of a government official's qualified immunity from suit presents a question of law"). The test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v.

Lucinda Lovett v. Landon Herbert

907 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

established law for qualified immunity pur- poses. … But this is too fine an analysis on which to base a finding of clearly established law, and we are skeptical that a decision on the merits (not addressing qualified immunity), finding that defendant officials did not violate

Celeste Thomas v. Jennifer Myers

489 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

Once the defendant raises qualified immunity, however, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Heyne v. Metro.

Raub v. Bowen

960 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 2, 2013

Nevertheless, there are some clearly established standards to guide a reasonable police officer who detains a person for mental evaluation. … Goo-den filed suit and the officers invoked qualified immunity as a defense. The district court denied qualified immunity, as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id.

Brodie v. Summit County Children Services Board

51 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 1990

When considering a motion for summary judgment for the defense of qualified immunity, the judge may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established at the time the alleged act … “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. * * *” Id. at 818-819 . See, also, Anderson v.

Rivers v. Fischer

390 F. App'x 22 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

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 or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and

Mills v. Cvitkovich

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2024

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields state actors “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … They do state off-hand that Mills has not pointed to any clearly established right which would overcome Officer Cvitkovitch’s claim to qualified immunity (id. at PageID 208), but the lion’s share of Defendants’ Motion rests

City of Phoenix v. Yarnell

184 Ariz. 310 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Without ever reaching the issue of the detectives’ immunity, the court concluded that the detectives did not violate Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … What the County missed is that the City escaped liability not because of the detectives' qualified immunity but because there was no clearly established constitutional right that was violated. .