Case law

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

813 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2011

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … Marshal protected by qualified immunity where “the law in 2002 did not clearly establish that strip searching all male arrestees prior to placement in holding cells at the Superior Court violated the Fourth Amendment.”)

Musso v. Hourigan

836 F.2d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 5, 1988

In reaching this result, the Court noted that the doctrine of qualified immunity rests on the belief that "where an official's duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the … Qualified Immunity 16 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official performing discretionary functions is protected from personal liability to the extent that his "conduct does not violate clearly established

Porter v. MASSARELLI

303 Ga. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2010

(a) Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … clearly established law.

Phillips v. Roane County, Tenn.

534 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2008

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 … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages so long as the official's conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a … Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v .

Irizarry v. Yehia

38 F.4th 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 11, 2022

The district court nonetheless held that Officer Yehia was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Irizarry had not shown a violation of clearly established law. … Irizarry has shown a violation of clearly established law. Officer Yehia is not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

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.

Parsons v. Wright

649 A.2d 1108 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Nov 10, 1994

Whether the Wrights are entitled to a qualified immunity is a question of law for the court. … The application of the qualified immunity doctrine turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action viewed in light of the “clearly established” legal rules at the time the action was taken.

Campbell v. Burt

949 F. Supp. 1461 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 14, 1996

Qualified Immunity For Defendant’s Failure to File a Timely Petition 19. An official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not “clearly established.” Anderson v. … established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time “clearly established,” or if “clearly established,” was one that a “reasonable” person in the defendant … Thus, when a defendant moves for summary • judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable officer in the

Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Dale E. Foltz Gwen Bogan Don Wentworth A.E. Tessmer John Doe, No. 1

14 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 1993

B. 8 Foltz is entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of official discretionary functions to the extent that his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … I am troubled, however, on the question of qualified immunity--whether Taylor "failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." See Siegert v.

Bergeron v. Cabral

560 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 9, 2009

The Qualified Immunity Inquiry. A district court's ruling granting or denying a summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity engenders de novo review. … The third prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is qualitatively different from the first two prongs.

Uduko v. Cozzens

975 F. Supp. 2d 750 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 27, 2013

Plaintiff goes on to argue that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff pled that his rights that were violated were clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct. … Of course, those rights are clearly established. However, if courts define rights at such a broad level, qualified immunity will virtually cease to exist. Therefore, in Anderson v.

Powers v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

105 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jul 5, 2000

The firsU — to honor the policies undergird-ing qualified immunity by disposing of cases quickly on legal grounds — is equally applicable to the “clearly established” inquiry. … “In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Williams v. Pate

463 S.W.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 20, 2015

Appellees filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … of qualified immunity.

Thomas Ingrassia v. Carol Dicknette

825 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

“Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but not if their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Defendants contend that, even if questions of material fact remain whether Ingrassia was denied adequate nutrition, the right to adequate nutrition was not clearly established, warranting qualified immunity.

Olson v. City of Hooper Bay

251 P.3d 1024 · Alaska Supreme Court · Apr 15, 2011

But another primary purpose-immunity from damages-remains attainable if the claim of qualified immunity is established at trial. 62 *1037 In Sheldon, we affirmed the superior court's decision to grant qualified immunity to … When qualified immunity cannot be established as a matter of law because genuine issues of material fact bar summary judgment, qualified immunity may still be established at trial to shield against damages.

GRIFFIN v. THE CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2021

determining entitlement to qualified immunity” and teaches officials how to govern their conduct in the future. … Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011) (burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to official claiming it as defense (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982)).

Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

746 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2014

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense “The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they can establish either that (1) ‘a constitutional right was [not] violated’ or (2) ‘the right was [not] clearly established.’ … established.

Payne v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.

Nebraska Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil dam- ages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the