Case law

Hendricks v. New Albany Police Department

749 F. Supp. 2d 863 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 1, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not *870 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The applicability of qualified immunity is determined by a two-part inquiry established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Bey v. Tennessee Department of Correction

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2020

“An answer of ‘yes’ to both questions defeats qualified immunity, while an answer of ‘no’ to either question results in a grant of qualified immunity.” Haley v. Elsmere Police Dep’t, 452 F. … Despite the factual similarities to Plaintiff’s case, the law was not clearly established under the First Amendment.

Petta v. Rivera

143 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

Regarding the applicability of qualified immunity, we merely observed that “[u]se of excessive force in making an arrest violates clearly established rights, and the doctrine of qualified immunity therefore does not shield … Once an officer uses objectively unreasonable force to effect an arrest, he loses his qualified immunity, whether the other elements of an excessive force claim are clearly established or not.

Achterhof v. Selvaggio

757 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 27, 1991

In searching for clearly established constitutional rights for qualified immunity purposes, a district court ... must find binding precedent by the Supreme Court, its court of appeals or itself. … In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law.

Manhattan Beach Police Officers Association, Inc. v. City of Manhattan Beach David J. Thompson Harry L. Kuhlmeyer, Jr.

881 F.2d 816 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 8, 1989

The only issue before us, however, in reviewing the denial of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, is whether the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of norms that were clearly established at the time of the challenged … The Supreme Court has stated that state and local officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Wilson v. Wright

998 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1998

Prison officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”' … Thus, in determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of

Wilson v. Meeks

98 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 23, 1996

Suffice that the first appeal established the qualified immunity of the individual police officers from all of plaintiffs’ federal claims. … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that “there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to

Burbank v. Davis

227 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Maine · Oct 23, 2002

The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Under the First Circuit’s three-part qualified immunity standard the “clearly established” element has two prongs: one, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and, two, whether a reasonable

Jeffrey "Zeal" Stefanoff v. Hays County, Texas and Paul Hastings, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacity

154 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 19, 1998

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time the challenged action occurred, the federal law proscribing it was clearly established not only as an abstract matter but also in a more particularized sense … In order to overcome Hastings’s claim of qualified immunity, Stefanoff must specifically allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Barrett v. Miller

599 So. 2d 559 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1992

Vincent, Jr. and Chris Robinson, the two deputies who conducted the search, on the grounds that the Barretts failed to allege facts that established that the search by the deputies lacked good faith or violated clearly established … The deputies argue that qualified or good faith immunity can only be abrogated upon a showing of a lack of good faith belief that the conduct was lawful; that the conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Brawley v. Washington

712 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 3, 2010

entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff has shown evidence, if believed, that would demonstrate a violation of her clearly established rights, barring the qualified immunity defense. III.

Donovan v. Briggs

250 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 26, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … was not clearly established in the context of the actions giving rise to the suit); Warlick v.

Caldwell v. Brogden

678 So. 2d 1148 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · May 10, 1996

A qualified immunity inquiry involves two questions: first, whether the defendants were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, and second, whether their actions violated clearly established law. … The burden then shifted to Caldwell to prove that they violated clearly established law, a burden that she failed to meet.

National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo

49 F.4th 700 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suits for money damages unless their conduct violates clearly established law of which a reasonable … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Conner v. Department of Commerce

443 P.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 2019

Department of Commerce those terms when discussing immunity conferred by the GIA. In this context, “qualified immunity” simply means “immunity subject to exceptions,” Hansen v. … ¶40 Conner also argues that the Defendants waived the governmental immunity defense when they agreed to withdraw (…continued) discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election Commission

301 Mich. App. 619 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER § 4 OF THE MMMA The language of § 4 indicates that a “qualifying patient” who has been issued and possesses a registry *609 identification card is immune from arrest and prosecution … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana under the applicable

Robert Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati

595 F.3d 327 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 2010

Page 7 Kennedy failed to show that his clearly established rights were violated. … alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”).

Fifield v. Eaton

669 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 20, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of their discretionary duties does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … that it would not violate clearly established rights.