Case 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

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2003

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

William Darnell v. Col. John H. Ford

903 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

The court reasoned that this claim was not “clearly established” in the law, and therefore Ford was protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The Patrol reinstated Darnell to the rank of Captain. … Whether qualified immunity should be applied in this case depends on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. The trial court should make this determination.

Garlanger v. Verbeke

223 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

York v. Purkey

14 F. App'x 628 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2001

Therefore, in deciding whether law was clearly established for the purpose of qualified immunity, we look for decisions that involve positions with the same or similar statutory duties. Id. In McCloud v. … The Court wrote: If the law was clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

324 F.3d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 2003

The district court also held that the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was clearly established. Defendants filed this interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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

Sweatt v. Blackman Township Officer Brent Doxtader

986 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 11, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … excessive force. 4 The Court finds that this right was clearly established.

Michael Seals-Brown v. Jeffrey Llopis

678 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2017

qualified immunity related to their enforcement of those conditions. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

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.

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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