Case law

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.

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

French v. Merrill

15 F.4th 116 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 1, 2021

Hence, the officers - 34 - violated clearly established law and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C. … qualified immunity

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.

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.

Dotson v. City of Youngstown, Ohio

76 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 1999

DISCUSSION Defendant Chaibi contends he is entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Wegener v. City of Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991).

Pruitt v. West Virginia Department of Public Safety

222 W. Va. 290 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2008

to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Accordingly, under Chase Securities, Trooper Kane would enjoy immunity from personal liability for official acts if his conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known and

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).

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?

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

Peach County School District v. Austin

322 Ga. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 20, 2013

Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection. … Moreover, qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, rather than a mere defense to liability, and “courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold

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.

Monroe v. Gould

372 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was 'clearly established'; and (3) even if the right was 'clearly

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.”

Hubert Arturo Acevedo v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2026

The qualified immunity test is a familiar one. … We now turn to the second element of qualified immunity, and we ask whether Acevedo’s rights were clearly established.

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. .

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

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

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

495 Mich. 1 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2014

Among them is § 4(a) of the MMMA, which immunizes registered qualifying patients from “penalty in any manner” for specified MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. MCL 333.26424(a). … The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.

Verdecia v. United States

327 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal”). … This court, however, “reviews summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions differently from other summary judgment decisions” because of the purposes behind qualified immunity. Holland v.