Case law

Gasparre v. City of St. Paul

501 N.W.2d 683 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jun 22, 1993

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Morgan v. Morgensen

465 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2006

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established [7] We proceed to the second qualified immunity inquiry: whether that right was clearly established. … A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity if the law governing his conduct was clearly established such that a reasonable prison official would know that his conduct was unlawful.

Acoff v. Abston

762 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 1985

Abston invokes a qualified immunity from suit due to his “good faith” reliance on a City policy that was not clearly unconstitutional at the time of the shooting; the judgment in favor of all defendants could stand if this … The retroactive effect of Garner does not necessarily resolve the related issue of Officer Abston’s qualified immunity.

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

169 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 4, 2016

Although qualified immunity is most often raised at the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of raising a qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss. … Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because the rights that Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

Rosenthal v. County of Madison

339 Mont. 419 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2007

“The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Moreover, even if we were to speculate with Rosenthal that new evidence would establish that Zenker’s conduct was entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity, he does not show how he will pierce the qualified

Douglas W. Schwenk v. James Hartford Steve Sinclair Robert Mitchell,opinion

204 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 29, 2000

This satisfies the first part of the “analytical framework” for determining qualified immunity established in Siegert . … Was the Law Clearly Established?

VAN VALEN v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2020

established law, Lanigan would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

738 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violate a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time the alleged violation took place. … The Plaintiffs’ reliance on unpublished case law drawn from other circuits and from the district courts is unavailing, because only binding precedent can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Wilkins v. Palomino

District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2021

district court to rebut qualified immunity.”); Rojas v. … Absent this clearly established law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Coates v. Powell

639 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 8, 2011

Nevertheless, the court granted Glandon qualified immunity, finding that the law did not clearly establish “at the time of this incident that an officer was required to leave a private home in the middle of a child neglect … “[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 person would have

Morgan v. Bubar

115 Conn. App. 603 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 14, 2009

The defendants argue that Carini and Castronova are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … “When [a motion for summary judgment] is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. ...

Lynette Christmas v. Harris County, Georgia

51 F.4th 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2022

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for govern- ment officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If, however, the official vio- lated the law[,] but his conduct was not clearly established as un- lawful, the court must grant him qualified immunity.

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

Khansari v. City of Houston

14 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 9, 2014

’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court turns directly to the second analytical step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether that right was clearly established when the actions at issue occurred. … January 26, 2010), plaintiffs acknowledge that [f]or the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, “ ‘clearly established’ means that the ‘contours of the right’ are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities University of California Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory, Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and the United States Department of Energy John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Gary Granere, Acting Area Manager-Department of Energy Los Alamos Area Office University of California Donald Kerr, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Ed. C. Walterscheid, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory John S. Herrington Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory

844 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1988

to qualified immunity. … If the law was not clearly established at the time defendants acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2814 .

Hicks v. Leffler

119 Ohio App. 3d 424 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

First, with regard to immunity for a federal claim, in order to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have … Taken together, Hunter and Harlow stand for the proposition that, where the law has been clearly established, a mistaken decision made in extraordinary circumstances may not lead to loss of immunity.

Williams v. Goord

142 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 2001

Even if the applicable law was clearly established when the purported violation occurred, officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were “objectively reasonable.” … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is therefore only appropriate if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed

Siegert v. Gilley

692 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1988

When the Harlow Court redefined the qualified immunity defense it provided an additional basis for defendant to retain his qualified immunity even if his actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Our inquiry does not end with the identification of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the stripping away of defendant’s qualified immunity.

Isely v. Capuchin Province

877 F. Supp. 1055 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 1995

General Electric Company, supra, make clear that the initial foundational requirement a proponent of expert scientific testimony must meet as a pre-requisite to admissibility is to establish that the witness is qualified … It was in Frye that the "general acceptance” requirement was first established. 4 .