Case law

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.

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

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

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Starlight Sugar, Inc. v. Soto

253 F.3d 137 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1981), the district court identified a two-part test for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity: (1) whether the law was clearly established at the time the action was … When determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, state,4 as well as federal, decisions can be considered. See Cinelli v.

Harris v. Hammon

914 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 19, 2012

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Reynolds v. Smythe

418 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has enunciated the qualified immunity inquiry as follows: “First, we must determine whether the defendants violated ‘clearly established’ rights. … Saucier instructs lower courts to examine whether a constitutional right was clearly established in the second-prong of a two-prong qualified immunity inquiry, whereas Harvey examines whether defendants violated a clearly

Michael Segaline v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. ... Absent a clearly established right, Mr. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability and money damages so long as "'their conduct does not violate clearly established ...

Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier

161 Vt. 168 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 29, 1993

Defendants first argue that Parker’s acts were discretionary in nature and thus immune under the doctrine of qualified official immunity. … Bd., 125 Vt. 366, 369, 216 A.2d 44, 46 (1965) (distinction “is not clearly defined,” basis of distinction “is difficult to state,” and no established rule exists for determination of what belongs to which class); Marshall

Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles

222 Cal. App. 3d 869 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1990

The County insists the law clearly provides absolute immunity for the conduct in issue here. “Qualified or ‘good faith’ immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official. [Citation.]” … “Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Ralph and Sharon Hughes v. City of North Olmsted

93 F.3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

The individual defendants respond that they are all entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … In the present case, the defendants should have been granted qualified immunity because there is no evidence that the investigation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Lyons v. City of Xenia

90 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2004

Because we conclude as a matter of law that Officer Keith did not violate any clearly-established constitutional rights, we reverse the district court’s judgment denying her qualified immunity. … defendant did acts that violated clearly established rights.”

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Williams v. Bitner

285 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2003

Defendants also claim entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that the violation was not so “clearly established” that prison officials should be expected to avoid it. … Long, 72 F.3d 70, 73-74 (8th Cir.1995) (finding that Muslim inmates had a clearly established right to refrain from handling pork for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis); Kenner v.

Buck v. City of Albuquerque

549 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 9, 2008

entitlement to qualified immunity. … Third, he urges that, even if the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, he is protected by qualified immunity’s second prong, because the right of the Arrested Plaintiffs was not clearly established.

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.

Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns

11 Am. Tribal Law 31 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2012

, as Dana clearly intended. … However, the provision was, without doubt, part of the larger statutory scheme that established NHA as a public body.

Loynachan v. Smiley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

Qualified immunity is a 25 question of law to be decided by the court. … Clearly Established Right 5 Still, qualified immunity applies if the violated 6 constitutional right was not clearly established.

Brian Dias William Mason, Sr. v. Jose Elique Michael Murray University and Community College System of Nevada University of Nevada, Las Vegas

436 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Appellants assert Murray and Elique (the “Supervisors”) violated their clearly established constitutional rights by initiating an investigation without giving Appellants proper notice under Nev.Rev. … The district court applied the doctrine of qualified immunity and dismissed these claims. 5 To determine whether summary judgment on qualified immunity was proper, we must first evaluate whether, taking the facts in the light

Harold Fish v. Tim Brown

838 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

government official; so, qualified immunity applies. … Sauls, 206 F.3d 1156, 1165 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[A] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable police officer could have believed his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and