Case law

Peelman v. Delaware Joint Vocational School District Board of Education

763 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 3, 1991

Fitzgerald involved the application and scope of the qualified immunity of federal executive officials arising under federal law, some questioned the applicability of the Harlow decision to a defense of qualified immunity … Therefore, because the same facts which would establish the validity of the plaintiff’s claim under § 1983, would serve to deny the defendants the protection afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, the defendants

William G. Moore, Jr. v. Joseph B. Valder

65 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

Furthermore, it has not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right. 11 Accord *196 ingly, the postal inspectors’ qualified immunity defeats Moore’s malicious prosecution … Qualified immunity protects a government official who performs discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if he can show that his actions did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Smith v. Allbaugh

987 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 10, 2021

Constitutional Violation A public official or employee is entitled to qualified immunity unless “clearly established” federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known are shown to have been violated. … Once a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Morris v.

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

Tasker v. Moore

738 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 1990

Thus, the threshold question to be answered by a court presented with a defense of qualified immunity is whether the law was “clearly established” at the time the action complained of was taken. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Stinebaugh v. City of Wapakoneta

630 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Thus, Stinebaugh established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that his First Amendment rights were violated. See City of Elyria, 502 F.3d at 491 . B. Clearly Established Law. … “To determine whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, this court look[s] first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and

Seaman v. Karr

114 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2002

Clearly Established Law To determine whether a federal right is clearly established, we look first to United States Supreme Court precedent and then to decisions of the controlling Circuit Court of Appeals. … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing *681 violates that right.

George Zilich v. Thomas Longo David Mack Nancy Marincic Rose Marie Lovano Joseph Suster Michael Abella and Wilhelm Spiegelberg

34 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

We conclude that the resolution and ordinance are not a bill of attainder and that their passage did not violate plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights; therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … We also agree with the findings of the district court that Zifich's First Amendment right of free speech was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

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 .

Subryan v. Regents of the University of Colorado

813 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 19, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … official violated the clearly established law.

Mucci v. Town of North Providence ex rel. Vallee

815 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Officer defendants are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as to these claims.

Knouse v. Primecare Med. of W. Va.

333 F. Supp. 3d 584 · United States District Court · Sep 24, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. … The court was asked to "define the right at issue" under a qualified immunity analysis: The defendant asked the court to frame the analysis as whether it is "clearly established that a prison medical provider runs afoul of

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Sharnick v. D'Archangelo

935 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 22, 2013

reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … If the law was “clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily ... fail[s], since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

Miller v. Spiers

434 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 7, 2006

This can be provided in the form of either absolute or qualified immunity. The amount and type of immunity granted a prosecutor depends on what activity is challenged. … Qualified immunity awaits more specifics.

Jantz v. Muci

976 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 14, 1992

Therefore, the court analyzed Plaintiff's qualified immunity defense under a rational basis test, holding that it was clearly established in 1988 that the government could not " 'discriminate [against homosexuals] for the … Applying this precept as clearly established by one fellow district court, 1 the court held that Defendant was not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because he did not offer a rational explanation for basing his

Evans v. Ball

168 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

Hence, the restrictions were not a clearly established constitutional violation, and the allegation of seizure cannot abrogate qualified immunity. 1. … qualified immunity.

Hike v. Hall

427 N.W.2d 158 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 20, 1988

Conversely, in situations in which assistant state’s attorneys’ activities are not quasi-judicial and consequently are clothed only with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity applies as well to a claim that the state … of liberty ... the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Taylor v. Russell

181 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 24, 2001

In defense of Plaintiffs equal protection claims, Defendants assert qualified immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity. … “Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.