Case law

Tricoci v. Blackman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2024

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a discretionary function that is objectively lawful in light of clearly established law and the information an officer possessed at the time. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or which a reasonable person would have known.")

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

308 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1989

Under section 1983, there are two types of immunity: qualified and absolute. 3 Qualified immunity is the norm for executive officials. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 807 , 102 S Ct 2727 , 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982). … It protects conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 US at 818 ; see also Anderson v.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State

199 Ariz. 196 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

We also invited the legislature to address those areas that might need the protection of absolute immunity or qualified immunity. … ’s failure to re *204 tain an arrested person in custody involves clearly governmental activity.

Powell v. Basham

921 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

On the First Amendment claim, defendants argued, inter alia, that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Powell’s First Amendment right to criticize the promotion system and practices had not been clearly established … Qualified immunity shields a public official from personal liability for constitutional violations “if his conduct was objectively reasonable as measured by clearly established law.” Darnell v.

Tony Ray Coleman v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

409 F.3d 665 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 2005

The dissent claims that application of Vitek to sex offender conditions cannot be clearly established under AEDPA because courts have found that the law in this area is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity … For qualified immunity purposes, law is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable official that her conduct was unlawful in the situation she confronted. Saucier v.

Barry v. Whalen

796 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 22, 1992

Determination of a federal official’s entitlement to the protection offered by qualified immunity involves an inquiry into whether the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Under this standard, Barry could prove that an official has violated his rights, but the defendants could nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not clearly established or if a reasonable person

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children

Brooks v. Sevier County

279 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 24, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense available to government officials for discretionary acts that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Claims of qualified immunity are assessed on a fact-specific basis to ascertain whether the particular conduct of the defendant police officer infringed on a clearly established federal right of the plaintiff, and whether

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

708 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. Armitage

36 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 25, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants also seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground of qualified immunity. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when, at the time the officer was acting, the right in question was not clearly established or, even if the right was established, it was not objectively reasonable for

Troy Baker, and Glenn Snader, as Father and Next Friend of Jesse Snader v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, and Eric Taylor

471 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes that a constitutional violation occurred, a court must next consider “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … When a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Silberstein v.

Holeman v. City of New London

330 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Since a constitutional violation could be shown, the court must proceed to the qualified immunity inquiry and ask whether the right violated was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

952 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Helms v. Gamet

828 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 6, 1993

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that Officer Garnet is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because a reasonable officer in his position could have believed his actions were lawful. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Westmoreland v. Sutherland

718 F. Supp. 2d 884 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 11, 2010

Qualified immunity cases, however, are not precisely on point. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Anne Powers v. John T. Lightner, D/B/A Lightner Auto Sales, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Barry Jones and Bruce White, Third-Party

820 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 3, 1987

I consider here only the issue of qualified immunity. I. … Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight

781 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 23, 2015

Municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity, but a municipality “cannot exhibit fault rising to the level of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right when that right has not yet been clearly established.” … At a minimum, the act of retaining the guns did not violate clearly established law.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

immunity, “our case law does not clearly establish a right to videotape police officers performing their official duties.” … Affirming the district court and rejecting officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the court of appeals held qualified immunity did not apply to officers because it was clearly established, "gathering information about government