Case law

Mitchell Alicea v. Aubrey Thomas

815 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2016

Grant of Qualified Immunity Improper Alicea further argues that the district court erred in grant- ing qualified immunity to both officers. … The doctrine of qual- ified immunity protects government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statu- tory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Andrew Cooperrider v. Maggie Woods

127 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … First, qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is less potent than absolute immunity.

Baker v. Chaplin

497 N.W.2d 314 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 11, 1993

Under this objective standard, officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a government official sued for his or her actions in the line of duty is entitled to immunity from suit if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established

McLain v. Milligan

847 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The relevant inquiry for assessing whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed” that Defendant’s actions were lawful “in light of clearly established law and the … This Court has delineated a two-step analysis for assessing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the court must consider the more general question of whether the law establishing the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly

DeAnzona v. City & County of Denver

222 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2000

If the defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff's version of the facts because the plaintiff has not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise … We hold that the district court erred by denying Brooks's motion for qualified immunity. DeAnzona had the burden of proving with specificity how Brooks violated Redd's clearly established right. See Tonkovich v.

Fletcher v. Town of Clinton

196 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

Qualified immunity analysis is two-pronged. "First, the court must establish whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged violation." St. … The charge of escape did not result in a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights, and the officers are, therefore, protected by qualified immunity. C.

Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness’s death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity: Whether Clearly Established The right not to be arrested unless there is probable cause is clearly established. See Goff v. Bise, 173 F.3d 1068 , 1072 (8th Cir.1999); see also Walker v. … Qualified Immunity The MAC Defendants are deprived of qualified immunity if they violated the right not to be arrested without arguable *785 probable cause or, even if they did, that right was not clearly established.

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

Rosario Rivera v. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority

472 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 31, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged putative violation. See Crawford-El v.

Savage v. County of Stafford, Va.

754 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 16, 2010

As noted above, in order to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity, the federal right alleged to have been violated must be clearly established at the time of the acts complained of such that an objectively reasonable official … It cannot be said that Sturdivant violated a clearly established federal right by arresting Savage.

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Computer Sciences Corp. v. Ibarra

685 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 27, 1988

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of convincing the court that its federal constitutional or statutory rights were clearly established at the time of the questioned

Brian Ulrich v. Pope County

715 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … A police officer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the time of

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

Secot v. City of Sterling Heights

985 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 10, 1997

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Frohm is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. As held by the Sixth Circuit in Adams , the right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is a clearly established right.

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Bradley v. Arkansas Department of Education

301 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

“If no ... right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. … In other words, “[i]f the law did not put [the defendant] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.