Case law

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.

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 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.

Torrez v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021

and qualified immunity is appropriate). … July 22, 2021), the Court engaged in an extremely thorough examination of precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ultimately finding

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Lunini v. Grayeb

395 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

Appellants now appeal that ruling on the narrow question whether Lunini's equal protection rights were indeed "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time of the alleged incident. I. … The appellants' appeal now comes before this Court, presenting a single narrow legal issue: whether the district court erred in ruling that Lunini's equal protection rights were "clearly established" for qualified immunity

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.

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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

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

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.

Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v.

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger v.

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

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.

Martinez v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

47 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Consistent with that ruling, the court denied qualified immunity to Trooper Boyd on the excessive use of force claim. … “For the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must be as plaintiff maintains.”

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

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Tatum v. Winslow

122 F. App'x 309 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2005

If this question is satisfied, then the court turns to the “qualified immunity inquiry,” and asks if the right was clearly established. Id. at 201-2. … The “Qualified Immunity Inquiry” The second step of the Saucier analysis requires that the defendant demonstrate that his misconduct was not a violation of clearly established law. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.