Case law

William Mariani-Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo-Ruiz, Etc.

877 F.2d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 23, 1989

A court must look to the “objective legal reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,” to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies. Id. … Acevedo Ruiz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of Mariani Giron’s discharge in March 1985, the law was not clearly established that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement

Luster v. Ledbetter

647 F. Supp. 2d 1303 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2009

Whether the Eclectic officers are entitled to qualified immunity Chief Ledbetter, Assistant Chief Miles, and Officer Renfroe also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. … Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1199 (11th Cir.2002) (denying qualified immunity based on clearly excessive force where officer slammed suspect into car after she had been handcuffed); Priester v.

Akers v. Caperton

998 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

(“[A] core issue in resolving the immunity defense is whether state officials violated clearly established legal norms_ Thus, the availability of qualified immunity overlaps substantially the question on the merits of the … Because the defendants’ actions did not violate “clearly established” law at the time of the transfers — and did, in fact, comply with this Circuit’s established law— the district court’s qualified immunity ruling must be

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Irving v. Dormire

519 F.3d 441 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 2008

A state official is protected from suit by qualified immunity so long as the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are properly denied qualified immunity only if the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the offense. Reece, 60 F.3d at 491 .

Lightfoot v. Floyd

667 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 4, 1995

Henson and Chief Smith and the qualified immunity of Investigator Floyd. … Lightfoot has stated a cause of action for conversion against Investigator Floyd and Floyd did not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the summary judgment for Floyd on this claim was

Bosley v. Lemmon

656 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 31, 2009

Federal Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity shields government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … so, whether that constitu *592 tional right is clearly established.

Easterling v. Pollard

528 F. App'x 653 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2013

The individual defendants are protected by the defense of qualified immunity: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The general principles of First Amendment law we have discussed were clearly established in 2010, but the qualified immunity defense turns on whether the application of those principles to the circumstances faced by the defen

Sweatt v. Bailey

876 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Because it is not clearly established that the first amendment places constraints on nonfeasance, however, the court grants Bailey qualified immunity on this claim. b.

Rodriguez-Cruz v. Trujillo

443 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 11, 2006

Immunity Lastly, defendant raises the qualified immunity defense. … Thus, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Burke v.

Rogers v. Gooding

84 F. App'x 473 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity for the Excessive Force Charges Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … not violate any clearly established principles.

Clyde Weiler v. James Purkett Leah Embly

137 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit when, “a reasonable officer could have believed [the challenged act] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [defendants … Contours of the Right as “Clearly Established” Normally, a determination that the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right ends the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Thomas v.

Roberson v. Mullins

876 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 30, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when they perform discretionary functions, unless their acts violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “Faced with such uncertainty, it may be preferable to err on the side of caution and ... find qualified immunity where [the court] cannot confidently state that the right was clearly established or that the officials must

Kubany v. School Board of Pinellas County

839 F. Supp. 1544 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the state of the law was so well established that a reasonable official should have been on notice that his or her chai-' lenged conduct was unlawful, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. -.Id.

Wright v. Department of Children and Family Services

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 2024

“[B]ecause immunity may depend on particular facts that a plaintiff need not plead to state a claim,” a motion to dismiss does not generally provide the best procedural setting to determine qualified immunity. … See id. at 590 (qualified immunity applies if the “well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law”).

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

924 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2013

Fox’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … “The doctrine of 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

Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections

194 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1992

Highest executive officials may qualify for absolute immunity because they have broad-based jurisdiction or extensive authority similar to that of a judge or legislator. Chivas, supra, p 471 . … Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants Brown and Johnson summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) based upon governmental immunity. 1 The remaining individual defendants do not qualify as "highest executive

Bryant v. Louisville Metro Hous. Auth.

568 S.W.3d 839 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 2019

Louisville Metro, then, is clearly cloaked in sovereign immunity. … Juanita Mitchell is entitled to official qualified immunity Because we have held that LMHA is an immune entity, we must determine whether Mitchell is, therefore, extended qualified official immunity for her actions as a government

Wray v. Painter

791 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable officer in his position would have known … The Right Was Clearly Established at the Time of the Violation Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, the Court must determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation

Rebecca Judge v. City of Lowell

160 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The Court specifically reserved judgment on the question whether its “qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in eases involving individual government officials.” Id. … “This option exists,” the Court went on to state, “even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.”