Case law

Noble v. City of Camden

112 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] '’ officers … of qualified immunity. .

Jamie Peterson v. David Heymes

931 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2019

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … Peterson fails to plead clearly established constitutional violations with respect to each federal claim.

Stephenson v. Doe

332 F.3d 68 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 13, 2003

The court later emphasized that this law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Yet under the same “clearly established law,” the jury nevertheless found that Dingier was also entitled to qualified immunity.

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

834 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 2016

The individual defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ricciuti’s termination. … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010), that “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Kevin M. Leckelt v. Board of Commissioners of Hospital District No. 1

909 F.2d 820 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

Thus, the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Leekelt failed to establish that he was discriminated against solely because of a perception that he was infected with HIV. … We are unable to conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that Leckelt did not establish pretext. C.

Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar

841 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1988

damages action by qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. … However, these factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the challenged actions

Martin v. Curry

13 Neb. Ct. App. 171 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2004

, had qualified immunity. … “Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘ “objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” ’ ” Id.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

128 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity. … immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Lynch v. Ackley

811 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2016

Held, the district court erred in 24 denying qualified immunity because there was no clearly established precedent at the time of the 25 defendant’s conduct that her conduct violated constitutional norms. … immunity because of the absence of clearly settled law to that effect at the time of the conduct.

Stewart v. Beach

701 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

Judge Robinson then turned to qualified immunity. … Furthermore, we harbor some doubt that Judge Belot’s denial of qualified immunity turned solely on whether the law was clearly established.

McIntire v. State

419 N.W.2d 799 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 23, 1988

In Harlow the Supreme Court further explained the applicable test: If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing … Whether the law was clearly established is a threshold question; if the trial court finds the law was not clearly established when the conduct occurred, “the inquiry ceases” and “the official is entitled to summary judgment

Corum v. University of North Carolina

330 N.C. 761 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1992

After filing an answer containing defenses, which included sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, defendants moved for summary judgment. … This is because “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Foote v. Spiegel

118 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 1997

Defendants argued Spiegel had probable cause for the arrest and reasonable suspicion for the strip search, and that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. … did not violate clearly established law.

Arcoren v. Peters

627 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 1986

The qualified immunity defense applies equally to RzVews-styled constitutional tort actions and cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Butz, 438 U.S. at 500-01 , 98 S.Ct. at 2907-08 . Clearly Established Rights. … Having violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 .

Henry v. Dinelle

929 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless … Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir.2007) ("[Ejven where the law is 'clearly established’ and the scope of an official's permissible conduct is 'clearly defined,' the qualified immunity defense also protects an official

Murphy v. Middlesex Cnty.

361 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … Thus, to establish qualified immunity, the MCPO Defendants are expected to address these cases and any similar cases in showing whether the rights implicated by this case may be considered clearly established.

Kemp v. Liebel

229 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2017

To survive summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish that the right they claim was clearly established in this judicial circuit. Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 767. … Thus we hold that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the “clearly established” standard sufficient to defeat Mr. Liebel’s qualified immunity defense to their claims.

Scott Peatross v. City of Memphis

818 F.3d 233 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2016

violated clearly established law.”) … Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 774 (6th Cir. 2005), the right is clearly established.

Booth v. City of Dallas

312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

Caretolive v. Von Eschenbach

525 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Instead, to establish that a right was clearly established in a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must look first to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and then to the case law of this circuit.