Case law

Hanson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 1059 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Thus, Sheriff Williamson asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because there were no clearly established constitutional standards on the date when the alleged violations occurred.

Hartsfield v. Lemacks

50 F.3d 950 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1995

This court utilizes a two-part analysis for the defense of qualified immunity. … In Lassiter, we explained that for law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “pre-existing law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion

Hall v. Jones

453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015

The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

Hassan Shabazz v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Commissioner, and Harold J. Smith, Superintendent

852 F.2d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The defendants’ answer alleged as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that damages were barred by qualified immunity and by the Eleventh Amendment. They moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … This court recently reiterated that qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Dennis v. Board of Education

21 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2014

immunity. 3 School officials *503 performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity — they are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent “ ‘their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of its violation.”

James W. Smoak v. Eric Hall, David Bush Jeff Phann Tim McHood Brian Brock Jerry Andrews, Lieutenant

460 F.3d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes when the contours of the right are sufficiently clear, even if the specific action in question has never been held unlawful. See Sample, 409 F.3d at 698 . … established at the time as to deny the defendants the benefits of qualified immunity.

Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police

71 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 1995

The officers contend that the district court erred because they are shielded from Orsatti's claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 7 Because we find that the undisputed material facts of record establish that it was … Finding that the right at issue was clearly established, however, does not end the court's inquiry. Nor does the court's decision turn merely on whether the official violated that clearly established right.

Michael A. Galvan v. Giles Garmon

710 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1983

Appellant appeals, claiming that appellees are protected only by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity, as redefined by the Supreme Court in Harlow , permits state officers to be subjected to suits only if the officials’ conduct clearly violated an established statutory or constitutional right of which a

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

921 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 5, 2013

constitute.a violation of clearly established law.” … The question for the Court is whether the rights were clearly established to a reasonable person. The Court concludes they were, and denies qualified immunity.

Pettus v. McGinnis

533 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

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 … immunity was limited to whether right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident, and concluding that it was not).

Tonja Ames v. King County

846 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2017

City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A defendant who appeals a denial of qualified immunity on the ground that his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established … IV “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

Thomas Bowden v. Vernon Martin

807 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

Public officials are immune from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We need not address the separate question of whether any infringed right was clearly established, although we note that the qualified immunity inquiry is not identical to the question of probable cause: an official enjoys

Herman Runge v. David Dove, Henry Kosters, in Their Individual and Official Capacities and the Douglas School District 51-1

857 F.2d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1988

Finally, qualified immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the suit because it addresses a question of law: whether the law clearly established the impermissibility of the defendant’s actions at the time they … Qualified Immunity Dove and Kosters claim that, as a legal matter, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from unsubstantial suits and harassing litigation, Harlow v.

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Grady v. Becker

907 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 13, 2012

Qualified immunity principles Qualified immunity insulates government officials from suit when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … These cases simply highlight that the law in the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established prior to Chambers . Cf.

Moore v. Giorla

302 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity When a defendant in a § 1983 action claims qualified immunity, a court must first determine if the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory … Regarding the qualified immunity analysis, Defendant only contests whether the injury was sufficiently serious, and whether Plaintiff's rights were clearly established.

Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College

972 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 2013

To achieve this balance, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they perform discretionary functions provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because they do not clearly violate any of Minnis’s constitutional rights.

Perez-Morciglio v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

820 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Nevada · Oct 25, 2011

Plaintiffs also have established their rights were clearly established. … Because the qualified immunity inquiry is entwined with the merits, genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Scott and Schaier are entitled to qualified immunity.

Crowson v. Washington County State, Utah

983 F.3d 1166 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 29, 2020

Merits Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … We therefore proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the violation was clearly established.9 See 9 Mr. Crowson asserts that Dr.