Case law

Pisciotti v. County of Wayne

76 F. Supp. 2d 307 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 1999

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Further, even if the plaintiffs rights were clearly established, a government actor is entitled to qualified immunity if at the time of the challenged act it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions

Dudek v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 2013

The standard for qualified immunity is "objective,” and not "subjective,” reasonableness, "as measured by reference to clearly established law” about which a "reasonably competent public official should know.” … for qualified immunity purposes. .

Anthony Palmer v. Paul Richards, Ronald Goss

364 F.3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 2004

established, we conclude that the district court (Baer, J.) properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … It was, of course, Richards’s burden at summary judgment to show the nonexistence of a clearly established right and his entitlement to qualified immunity. Tellier, 280 F.3d at 84 .

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity.

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. .

Gale v. Storti

608 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Brian Ulrich v. Pope County

715 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … A police officer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the time of

Angela Orr v. Eric Copeland

844 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 22, 2016

Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[O]nce a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.”). … But qualified immunity insulates those 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

Lavoy Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

2 F.4th 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from personal liability if his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Quraishi v. … “[T]he issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause, that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly established right.” Schaffer v.

Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

902 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … “When . . . a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense . . . [t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established . . .

Kenneth B. Krohn v. United States of America

742 F.2d 24 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 28, 1984

Further, we are cognizant that qualified immunity differs from absolute immunity in that it is not so readily decided by motion; obviously, on some occasions officials possessing only qualified immunity must stand trial. … Briscoe established an absolute immunity from section 1983 suit for a police officer/witness.

Victoria v. City of San Diego

326 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2018

In suits under § 1983, qualified immunity "shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … In general, the doctrine 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

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).

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Prager v. LaFAVER

5 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 10, 1998

Once a defendant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. … City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1487 (11th Cir.1992) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, but emphasizing defendants’ right to assert the qualified immunity defense in subsequent proceedings

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.

People v. Bylsma

294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

Smith v. Anderson

874 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a clearly establish statutory or constitutional right. Id. … In such circumstances, the officers responsible for their detention are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. That is the situation here.

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.