Case law

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).

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

Gray v. Cummings

917 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2019

Cummings has invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, a government official may invoke the defense of qualified immunity when his actions, though causing injury, did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Heard v. Dulayev

29 F.4th 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2022

The defendants argued Dulayev was entitled to qualified immunity because Dulayev’s alleged actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under clearly established law. … “In cases where we . . . resolve [the related] claim under the clearly- established-law prong” of the qualified immunity defense, however, “we have repeatedly declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over

Vaughn v. Soltis

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2023

In the qualified immunity context, “[t]he sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited. … Here, the Court proceeds directly to the clearly established step of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of Vaughn’s encounter with the deputies that the

Kelsea Mercer v. Athens Cnty., Ohio

72 F.4th 152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity Nurse Gray, Officer Lowery, and Officer Jarvis assert qualified immunity. … Moreover, “[w]hen federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) rest on the same questions of material fact, we may review the state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Miley v. Housing Authority

926 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 25, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Donahue v. Gavin

280 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 7, 2002

B. 28 Government officials exercising discretionary functions have qualified immunity from suits seeking damages under § 1983 "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Erickson v. Hunter

932 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 10, 1996

DISCUSSION (1) Qualified Immunity Defendant Don Hunter raises the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity will shield public officials performing discretionary functions only to the extent that their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Harlow v.

Cox v. County of Suffolk

780 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1991

Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability, but also a “protection against having to defend a lawsuit.” Magnotti, 918 F.2d at 367 . … clearly established at the time those acts took place.

Ways v. City of Lincoln

909 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 13, 1995

Because this inquiry is fact intensive, “ ‘the asserted First Amendment right’ can rarely be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard.” Id. (quoting Buzek v. … by definition be “clearly established.”

Jennifer Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 13, 2025

The court concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. … Because Harmon failed to show that the alleged substantive due process violations were clearly established, the Government Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claims.

Morris v. Town of Lexington Alabama

748 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2014

“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 … rights were “clearly established” when the defendant committed the act complained of.

Hinton v. City of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Since this conclusion is sufficient to support the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time Myer and White’s conduct occurred. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that *783 issue, 857

Watson v. Apache County

218 Ariz. 512 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 6, 2008

The Watsons challenge the court’s rulings that the County is entitled to qualified immunity and that they failed to *514 present or identify facts or an expert witness to establish gross negligence. … Specifically, they argue that, if the County is not protected by qualified immunity, then the issue of gross negligence is irrelevant.

Marjorie Shepherd v. City of Shreveport

920 F.3d 278 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace, 333 F.3d at 623. … Shepherd argues that Corporal Tucker is not entitled to qualified immunity because “the constitutional right to be free of deadly force” is clearly established.

Alicia Street v. Gerald Leyshock

41 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

We conclude that the allegations in this case are insufficient to establish a plausible claim that the defendant officers violated any plaintiff’s clearly established right against the use of excessive force. … doctrine means that they did not violate a clearly established right.