Case law

Griswold v. Alabama Department of Industrial Relations

903 F. Supp. 1492 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 10, 1995

Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In light of this finding, the supervisors’ entitlement to qualified immunity depends upon whether Griswold’s allegations implicate a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful activities.

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Dorsett-Felicelli, Inc. v. County of Clinton

371 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 1, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … County Defendants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct was -objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

McGrath v. Tavares

757 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity In any event, even if a constitutional violation was established, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly … does not need to establish the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity

Clifton v. Borough of Eddystone

824 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2011

A state official with qualified immunity has no civil liability for discretionary conduct so long as he does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Furthermore, the right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of handcuffing is clearly established and is not defeated by qualified immunity. Id. at 778 . Plaintiff was not subject to excessive force.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

Crigger v. McIntosh

254 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (i) whether the facts as alleged establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was clearly established

Marilyn Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers

15 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

In addition to establishing a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must show that the right in question was “clearly established” to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. … immunity because clearly established law renders such action unconstitutional. 1 .

Cross v. Mokwa

547 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … the plaintiffs clearly established federal rights.”

Robinson v. City and County of Denver

39 F. Supp. 2d 1257 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 26, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established?

Gerhart v. McLendon

714 F. App'x 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory' or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer’s failure to do so violated clearly established law and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 955-56 .

Frierson v. Goetz

227 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 10, 2002

The plaintiff argues that the defendant is not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because the law was clearly established that the Federal Wiretap Act preempted state law. … While these authorities provide some interesting insight, they are not relevant for purposes of determining qualified immunity as to whether the law was clearly established in this circuit with respect to the defendant’s

Schumacher v. Halverson

467 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 15, 2006

Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit for official acts as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right and the conduct is objectively unreasonable, qualified immunity applies. Gorra, 880 F.2d at 97 . B.

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Lipson v. Anesthesia Services, P.A.

790 A.2d 1261 · Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 3, 2001

Arguably, if ASPA could establish that it provides health care services (which clearly it does) and that it “follows a formal peer review process,” its governing body would qualify as a “professional review body” when engaged … Delaware clearly recognizes “a qualified privilege of employers to make communications regarding the character, qualifications, or job performance of an employee or former employee to those who have a legitimate interest

Simon v. City of New York

819 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 7, 2011

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. The Prosecutor’s Actions In Imbler v. … It is beyond dispute that individuals are protected by qualified immunity so long as “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) [it] was objectively reasonable for them to believe

Vaughn v. Gray

557 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks two questions: “(1) whether ... there was a deprivation of a constitutional right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established … In this case, Appellants argue only that Vaughn has not established the deprivation of a constitutional right, and therefore, we need not address whether that right was “clearly established.”

Campos De Suenos, Ltd. v. County of Bernalillo

130 N.M. 563 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2001

They correctly point out that to overcome their assertions of qualified immunity, CDS “must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly … established at the time of the conduct.”

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Nichols v. Block

656 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 5, 1987

This qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative *1441 defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established constitutional rights of which a … Whether the officials may prevail in their defense of qualified immunity depends upon “the objective reasonableness of [their] conduct as measured by clearly established law.”