Case law

Ginter v. Stallcup

869 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Ginter challenges the decision to grant qualified immunity to Blasingame and Lee before allowing her to conduct discovery in this case. … Ginter to violate any statutory or constitutional right which had been “clearly established” prior to June 3, 1983.

Estate of Holmes v. Somers

387 F. Supp. 3d 1233 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 17, 2019

Qualified immunity "shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Gann v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is asserted, a plaintiff must show: "(1) that the defendant's actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at

Edwards v. Cabrera

861 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 1994

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity will shield the officers from liability to the extent their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The Seventh Circuit has described the qualified immunity inquiry as having two prongs: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged' conduct occurred.

Smith v. Upson County, Ga.

859 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 8, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

Julie Peffer v. Mike Stephens

880 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 2018

That is because we are convinced that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and therefore qualified immunity applies. … Because there was no constitutional violation, we need not address the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, whether the law was clearly established.

Robert Eugene Rogers v. Officer Kevin Powell Officer Jeffrey Stine, A/K/A Stiney Officer Timothy Eiler Officer James Edwards

120 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 1997

Qualified Immunity A. … immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Schrob v. Catterson

948 F.2d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 1991

any clearly established constitutional rights. … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Frohriep v. Flanagan

278 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Lower level officers, *677 employees, and agents are extended only qualified immunity. This immunity exists when the individual is engaged in discretionary acts which are performed in good faith. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.”

Hunt v. Green

376 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 30, 2005

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established law,”, the order denying summary … Even assuming a constitutional violation occurred, however, the Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established in this area.

Stachel v. City of Cape Canaveral

51 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 22, 1999

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil Lability where “ ‘them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … However, even if this use of force was unnecessary, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless it was clearly established that the amount of force used was unlawful. See Goodman v.

Kerman v. City of New York

261 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 26, 2001

Qualified immunity will attach to an officer’s decision to enter a dwelling in response to perceived exigent circumstances so long as the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Notwithstanding these earlier indications of the law’s likely evolution, we cannot say that for qualified immunity purposes the current law governing the war-rantless entry in this case was clearly established by October

Fera v. City of Albany

568 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 30, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … violated were not clearly established.”

Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

924 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 12, 1996

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Id. … The qualified immunity inquiry begins, as always, with the alleged clearly established rights at issue. Here too the inquiry ends.

Navajo Nation v. Crockett

7 Navajo Rptr. 237 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1996

Qualified Immunity NAPI argues that in the absence of a showing of bad faith and gross negligence, an official who violates a person’s rights guaranteed by the Navajo Nation Bill of Rights is entitled to qualified immunity … Individual Navajo Nation officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

Scott v. Palmer

210 F. Supp. 3d 1303 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 27, 2016

was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it is clearly established in the Eleventh Circuit that “gratuitous use of force when a criminal suspect is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.

Brawley v. Punt

186 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Montana · May 11, 2016

On the other hand, because the law may not be clearly established, Officer Punt could be entitled to qualified immunity as a mat *1109 ter of law. The constitutional question is addressed first below. See Plumhoff v. … to qualified immunity.

Duke Grider v. B. Bowling

785 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 11, 2015

Officer Bowling is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated Grider's "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … It is "clearly established that an officer who fails to intervene to prevent the unconstitutional use of excessive force by another officer may be held liable for violating the Fourth Amendment." Nance v.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin

504 N.W.2d 220 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 27, 1993

Appellants first contend that they are immune from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Consequently, under the undisputed facts of this case respondents did not have a clearly established right to procedural due process. B.

Broussard v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

45 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 5, 2014

The defendants’ motions for sanctions and the alternative motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity are DEFERRED. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PATRICK J. HANNA, United States Magistrate Judge. … The Punitive Damages Claims It has been thirty-three years since the Supreme Court clearly stated: “we hold that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” City of Newport v.