Case law

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.”

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi

202 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 2000

Qualified Immunity 7  In considering Gaines and Perez’s qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified . . . … But that dispute is not dispositive of the qualified immunity question at this moment.

McLean v. McElhaney

289 Mich. App. 592 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 2010

under MCL 691.1407(5) or qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2). 10 Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, *605 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). … We note that if the trial court determines that Harma was entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), it need not also determine whether he was entitled to qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2).

In Re Scott County Master Docket

672 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 2, 1987

were not “clearly established.” … “[Qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions in

Nero v. Mosby

233 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2017

The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. Graham v. … That is, the right must have been clearly established at the time of events at issue. See Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). See discussion of qualified immunity below. .

Cornelius v. La Croix

631 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 3, 1986

Qualified Immunity David La Croix asserts that as a matter of law he is entitled to qualified immunity from the damages awarded against him in this case. Mr. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity as it now stands, the issue is whether the challenged conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Holton v. Mohon

684 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1987

Such a finding leads this Court to a discussion of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to governmental officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … Because the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless arrests is “clearly established” law, the defense of qualified immunity is available only if a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to believe

Hodge v. Village of Southampton

838 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunsucker argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Helfrick v. Rabb

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 1, 2021

qualified immunity — are either without merit or do not dispose of Helfrick’s claims for prospective relief. … Va. 2017) (holding that claims against Commonwealth’s attorney or his office are paid in part by the state, thus qualifying for immunity), aff’d, 715 F.

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.”

Tunnell v. Crosby

657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Neuberger v. Gordon

567 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 21, 2008

For qualified immunity purposes, a right is considered clearly established only if “[t]he contours of the right ... … As a result, the “unlawful intent inherent in ... retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of ... qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established.” DeLoach, 922 F.2d at 620 .

Elder v. Holloway

751 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Idaho · Nov 21, 1990

another’s ... clearly established constitutional rights?” … Qualified immunity. This court’s analysis on whether or not there was a valid arrest under the circumstances in this case controls the out *866 come on the issue of qualified immunity.

Darryl Williams v. Paul Delo Bill Hartley Raphael Coad Greg Dunn Unknown Wells, Officer Norma Lavrrar Paul Stuart, Officer

49 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

“Generally, prison officials may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to protect them from liability for civil damages” if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that would have been known to a reasonable … With respect to Williams’s claim for damages, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Eighth Amendment right that

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

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.

Trujillo v. Board of Education of the Albuquerque Public Schools

377 F. Supp. 2d 977 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 17, 2004

LAW ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … SECOND PRONG OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ANALYSIS: THE LAW MUST BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. Whether the law was clearly established at the time the claim arose is a legal issue for the court. See Elder v.

Borrero v. Metro-Dade County

19 F. Supp. 2d 1310 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 13, 1998

Therefore, qualified immunity will not apply only when a reasonable official would have known that her actions violated an individual’s clearly established rights. See Anderson v. … Therefore, as the facts stand at the summary judgment stage, Officer Serrano is not entitled to qualified immunity. 3 Moreover, showing that a right is “clearly established” is not the only way a plaintiff can get around

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