Case law

Ridpath v. Board of Governors Marshall University

447 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 11, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, we assess whether the free speech claims would contravene clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Mellen v.

Krzyske v. Commissioner

548 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 26, 1982

Even if the Commissioner is entitled to only a qualified immunity, however, the test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald protects the defendant in this action. … In Harlow the Supreme Court said that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional

Estate of Armstrong Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst

810 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 11, 2016

to qualified immunity.” … A “qualified immunity analysis,” therefore, “typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Estate of George Ex Rel. George v. Michigan

136 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 8, 2001

If no constitutional violation occurred, Defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

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.

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.

439 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

specific,” and therefore our rejection of qualified immunity in that case was “based on clearly and narrowly articulated Fourth Amendment principles.” … The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on both claims.

Jules Gassner v. City of Garland, Texas, M.L. Bates

864 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1989

The court defined this form of qualified immunity as follows: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Hence, the Court offered the following refinement of the Harlow qualified immunity test: [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized

Sollenberger v. Sollenberger

173 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 25, 2016

clearly established constitutional right. … Sept. 29, 2006) (stating R.C, 311.05 establishes qualified immunity for a sheriff).

Zackary Stewart v. Karl Wagner

836 F.3d 978 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 12, 2016

On this record, we conclude it was error to deny Prosecutor Selby qualified immunity on this claim because Stewart failed to present sufficient evidence that Wagner and Selby violated “clearly established [Fourth Amendment … If the motion was made and denied, that would at least establish there was no clearly established violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Davis v. City of Aurora Ex Rel. Oates

705 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 31, 2010

In considering what law is clearly established, factual novelty alone does not automatically provide a state official with the protections of qualified immunity. … case law to clearly establish the violation.”

Wilson v. Blankenship

163 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1998

General propositions and abstractions do not qualify for bright line, clearly established law. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. … detainees housed there or specific square footage for inmates to exercise violates no clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes, as we clarify. 1.

Meyer v. Town of Buffalo

482 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the judge noted, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendants’ actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and that the right violated was clearly … Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam), for the principle that an officer must be granted qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed, a reasonable officer

Richard Powell v. Randy Johnson

405 F.3d 652 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 2, 2005

On appeal, the Appellants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the decision to demote Powell was reasonable in light of clearly established law. … If the answer is no, qualified immunity is proper and summary judgment should be granted. If the answer is yes, we next decide “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Van Dyke v. Washington

896 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 1995

However, "the defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions `from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and (2) whether the constitutional standards implicated were clearly established at the time in question.

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Gilbert v. Selsky

867 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability provided that their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional … Sullivan, 720 F.Supp. 40, 43-44 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (right to independent assessment not clearly established in 1988).

Catletti ex rel. Estate of Catletti v. Rampe

334 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

The district court denied the motion, holding that defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is defeated by the clearly established constitutional right to testify at a trial. See Catletti v. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Hope v.

Harvey Lucious Hall v. George Lombardi William Armontrout, Warden Donald Cline

996 F.2d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 11, 1993

In determining whether the appellants are protected by qualified immunity, we must first decide “the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which [Hall] complains violated clearly established law,” and then we … The test “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts,” and the qualified immunity defense fails if the official violates a clearly established right because “a reasonably competent public official

Roberts v. Lapp

297 F. App'x 67 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 28, 2008

Parole officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they perform their non-judicial and non-prosecutorial tasks, provided that they do not violate clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Johnson v. Perry

859 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2017

was clearly established at 9 the time of the challenged conduct." … Against a background of clearly 2 established law, the availability of qualified immunity "generally turns on the [defendant's conduct's] 3 'objective legal reasonableness.'" Anderson v.