Case law

Gurno v. Town of LaConner

65 Wash. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1992

Qualified Immunity Respondent officers cite various doctrines of qualified immunity for police officers who act in good faith, arguing that appellant failed to introduce evidence of their lack of good faith in arresting her … Qualified immunity under § 1983 is granted to police officers performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Smith v. Lomax

45 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 1995

Then we ask, on the issue of qualified immunity, whether precedent clearly established that such conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause. … her of a clearly established property right.

Garmon v. Lumpkin County

878 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 1989

The district court granted defendants' motion for directed verdict based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 On January 22, 1986, Mrs. … Garmon's warrant was issued without probable cause he nevertheless is shielded from liability for damages under the rule of qualified immunity.

Hall v. Conklin

966 F. Supp. 546 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 1, 1996

In assessing qualified immunity, a defendant’s action is analyzed “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … And if a plaintiff fails altogether to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, defendants are entitled to dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity. Cameron v.

Crone v. Connelly

74 Conn. App. 788 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 4, 2003

“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 … As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

David B. Klein v. Paul Long, Blackman Township Police Officer Phillip Rogers, Blackman Township Police Sergeant

275 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity In civil suits for money damages, government officials acting in their official capacity are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We need not reach, then, the second part of the qualified immunity analysis delineated in Saucier — whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established.

Kipp v. Saetre

454 N.W.2d 639 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 1, 1990

THE IMMUNITY OP APPELLANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR The absolute immunity of prosecutors was established by the United States Supreme Court in Imbler v. … of his qualified immunity.

Galloway v. Hadl

548 F. Supp. 2d 1215 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 28, 2008

If plaintiffs allegations sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendants. I. … Because plaintiff has not alleged a clearly established violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hadl, Hofer and Riggs are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. B.

Chana Wiley v. City of Columbus

36 F.4th 661 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2022

The qualified immunity question turns on “(1) whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of … “When federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under Ohio Rev.

Wilson v. Jean

145 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2015

The Supreme Court teaches qualified immunity protects Defendant Officers from liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights’ a reasonable official, similarly situated, .would … on video and admitted by him is not clearly established.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

906 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 9, 1995

“Qualified immunity shields state officials exercising discretionary authority from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … has no qualified immunity from suit, presents a question of law... .

Turner v. Perry

278 S.W.3d 806 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 26, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials performing discretionary functions frpm suit if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly-established law. Anderson v. … Appellants contend that they nevertheless are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right protecting Perry’s speech.

Raymond Barton v. Sheldon Neeley

114 F.4th 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

If the public-official defendant did not violate a constitutional right, or if he did but the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court denied qualified immunity because it was “clearly established that the First Amendment protect[s] a citizen’s decision both as to what to say and  No. 23-2089 Barton v.

Victor Smith v. City of Troy, Ohio

874 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, is shielded from suit under § 1983 if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable official would … Osting is not entitled to qualified immunity for this use of force.

Padilla v. Mason

169 S.W.3d 493 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Jul 28, 2005

of qualified immunity and official immunity. … Because there was no clearly established rule which would prohibit Mason from using the force that he did, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Lang v. City of Nacogdoches

942 S.W.2d 752 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Mar 27, 1997

In suits alleging illegal arrest, the qualified immunity determination turns on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. *767 Anderson v.

Odhuno v. Reed's Cove Health & Rehab., LLC

355 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 14, 2018

Thus, Mallen does not support a clearly established constitutional right that defeats Rose and Sunderraj's claims of qualified immunity. … The Court next examines the second prong of qualified immunity-whether the law was clearly established.

Williams v. Belknap

154 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 24, 2001

If the Court were to decide that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity would shield the defendant from suit. … The Court’s conclusion that the right was clearly established, conversely, would mean that qualified immunity is no obstacle to a continuation of the suit.

Burns v. Citarella

443 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 18, 2006

Qualified Immunity: Merits 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 … Nevertheless, “Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable