Case law

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.

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 .

Esposito v. Williamson

854 So. 2d 694 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 25, 2003

Ordinarily, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from personal liability under § 1983. Moody v. City of Key West, 805 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in conduct that violated clearly established law. Id. at 1021 .

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Sorenson v. Ferrie

134 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.

Zar v. Payne

760 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity forecloses the Plaintiffs claims for warrantless entry into her home and use of excessive force. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Wright v. Watson

209 F. Supp. 3d 1344 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 25, 2016

In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: ‘(1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad statement of principle within

Ball v. Cook County School District

889 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 13, 1995

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Government actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil trials for money damages and may not be held liable in their individual capacity if their conduct violates no clearly established

DeShawn Anderson-Santos v. Kent County, Mich.

94 F.4th 550 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

Page 7 clearly-established constitutional violation based on his version of the facts, fails to present us with a legal issue and relegates his claim to a factual dispute over which we cannot exercise jurisdiction. … of clearly established law.”

Christian v. Fontenot

672 So. 2d 436 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1996

To avoid the protection of qualified immunity on the basis that the right which *446 the official allegedly violated is "clearly established," the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases clearly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. 483 U.S. at 639

Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons

401 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 22, 2005

If plaintiffs make this showing, defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were nonetheless reasonable in light of the clearly established law. Roska ex rel. Roska v. … “A defendant who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceeding, including at trial.” Guffey v.

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

Corey Airport Services, Inc. v. DeCosta

587 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2009

We conclude that these Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. I. … Because this is not such a case, the Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Crehan v. Davis

713 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 18, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … With no clearly established law in place .... ”)). 10 *697 This means that Crehan cannot defeat Officer Davis’s qualified-immunity defense w+nt “clearly establishing” her general Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive

Jeffrey Forter v. Randy Greer

536 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2013

Moreover, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and, as to the materials he eventually received, any injunctive relief would be moot. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009) (state officers entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law); Warsoldier, 418 at 997 n.7 (“There exists little Ninth Circuit authority construing

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Rodriquez v. Furtado

771 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 11, 1991

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has recently interpreted these holdings to establish a two-part objective test for qualified immunity claims: First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established … Therefore, Detective Furtado is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in his position would not have known he was violating any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiff. 2.

Palmer, Brady v. Eisenhauer, Scott

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Officer Pride also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Palmer’s claims because his conduct did not violate a clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Silva v. Town of Springer

121 N.M. 428 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1996

Section 1983 because of Appellees’ defense of qualified immunity. 21. Public officials have qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. … his or her conduct was violating that clearly established right.

Raub v. Campbell

3 F. Supp. 3d 526 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2014

Goo-den filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and officers invoked qualified immunity. The district court initially denied qualified immunity as did a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit. Id. … a claim of violation of clearly established law.”