Case law

Dube v. State University of New York

900 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1990

Dube’s file and the standards applicable at Stony Brook and in light of clearly established law” ... is not an answer to Dr. Dube’s claim. Summary judgment is therefore denied based on the qualified immunity defense. … Analysis It is well established that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Steven M. Harrison v. John Dahm, Etc.

911 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

The standard for qualified immunity is well established. In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.

District of Columbia v. Minor

740 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1999

In suits for unlawful arrest brought under § 1983, qualified immunity shields police officers from liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … The instruction given to the jury on qualified immunity stated: “Officer Kelsey is shielded from liability for civil damages as long as he did not intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violate clearly established statutory

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.

David Powell v. Jerry L. Gallentine Robert C. Martin Maria Elvira Rodriguez Richard C. Kauzlaric, Western New Mexico University Board of Regents

992 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

Meas v. City and County of San Francisco

681 F. Supp. 2d 1128 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 9, 2010

A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear … Here, defendants argue that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims because none of their actions violated clearly established law.

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

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.

Phat's Bar & Grill v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

918 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2013

Thus, Kentucky law adopts both an objective and a subjective approach to qualified immunity, whereas the federal law only provides immunity where the official objectively violated a person’s clearly established rights. … Because Officer Smith cannot prove that he did not violate Williams, Jr.’s clearly-established rights, Officer Smith’s claim to qualified official immunity on the Kentucky malicious prosecution claim must be denied.

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

("Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident." … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not subjectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on the

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

Wallace v. Moberly

947 S.W.2d 273 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 17, 1997

B) Qualified Immunity to § 1983 Claims In his second point of error, Wallace argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity to Moberly’s federal law … Wallace is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have reasonably believed his actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Hunter v.

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.

Franz v. Lytle

791 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 15, 1992

Qualified immunity claims are governed by the objective albeit fact-intensive “clearly established law” standard enunciated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … ‘clearly established’ law.”

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.

Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera County of Los Angeles

361 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established Even if Ceballos’s speech is constitutionally protected, the defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established … law is clearly established, and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.

Kerman v. City of New York

261 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2001

Qualified immunity will attach to an officer’s decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Notwithstanding these earlier indications of the law’s likely evolution, we cannot say that for qualified immunity purposes the current law governing the war-rantless entry in this case was clearly established by October

Bailey v. Kenney

791 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 16, 1992

Standards for Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to state actors who perform discretionary functions if their actions do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … violated a clearly established federal right of plaintiff.