Case law

Coen v. Runner

854 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Coen’s contention that Runner and Lassi-ter acted under color of state law to abridge his clearly established constitutional rights is threefold.

Cook v. City of Topeka

232 Kan. 334 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 3, 1982

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 [, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 , 98 S.Ct. 855 ] (1978) (qualified immunity for prison officials and officers); Imbler v. … Clearly the routine duty to recall a bench warrant upon payment of the fine cannot be construed as a quasi-judicial act.

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

Mosher Ex Rel. Estate of Mosher v. Nelson

589 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation." … Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Vincson Herren and Woody Eugene Herren v. E.J. Bowyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Georgia

850 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

Public officials performing discretionary functions 5 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a grant of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” 841 F.2d at 1565 ; accord Webb v.

Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.

722 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 2, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity from this lawsuit. Harlow v. … The plaintiff merely asserts that under Harlow , the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law or arrested

Eberhardinger v. City of York

341 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 17, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiff's rights were not "clearly established" when the individual acted. See Pearson v. … The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly admonished that, when analyzing qualified immunity, courts should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality."

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

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.

Wright v. Dee

54 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 1999

A state actor is qualifiedly immune where his actions did not violate rights that a reasonable person would have known were clearly established. Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 825 (2d Cir.1999). … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Wright’s disciplinary hearing that assignment to the SHU for three years and the loss of good time credits

State v. Jones

416 S.C. 283 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 18, 2016

In a pretrial motion, Jones asserted immunity from prosecution under the "Protection of Persons and Property Act" (the Act).1 Following a hearing, the circuit court judge granted the motion, finding Jones established by … Conclusion We conclude the circuit court judge properly granted Jones immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 16-11-440(C) because Jones's residence qualified as "another place" where she had the right to be

Brumley v. Utah State Tax Commission

220 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Utah Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of … Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity

Alexander v. City of Bessemer

142 So. 3d 543 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Oct 18, 2013

to so-called “qualified immunity” under federal law. … It is only “when an official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’” that ‘the official is not protected by qualified immunity.’ Id.

Judy Baker Mary Allison and Bonnie Johnson v. Pat Hadley, Columbiana County Auditor

72 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1995

The Supreme Court has also instructed that when analyzing whether a right is clearly established, the court must carefully define the right at issue: 9 The operation of this ["clearly established law"] standard, however, … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Tillman v. Coley

703 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 18, 1989

denial of defendant’s claim of good faith or qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 9, 2024

“Qualified immunity ‘protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Yates v.

Parsons v. Pond

126 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 24, 2000

In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was