Case law

May v. Higgins

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 24, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials who acted in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that reasonable officials would not have known their actions were unlawful.

Gary Vickery, Cross-Appellee v. Janell Jones, William Pearman and Kirk Brown, and Saline County Republican Central Committee and William Roberts

100 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

Second, if so, was the unconstitutionality clearly established or are the state defendants entitled to qualified immunity? Third, did [the plaintiff] suffer an injury by virtue of the defendants’ actions? … Qualified immunity shields government officials who are performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Ward v. Members of the Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University

700 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 24, 2010

Qualified immunity protects state officials sued in their individual capacities from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

BK v. Toumpas

909 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 14, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields ... state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right and (2) that the right was clearly established … In any event, a single decision from another district court does not provide the "fair warning” of clearly established law necessary to overcome the defendants' qualified immunity defense. See Lynch v.

Copper v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Dec 30, 1994

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of

Dontray Chaney v. City of Orlando, FL

291 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2008

Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability if, considering the facts in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the officers’ conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … to establish that qualified immunity does not apply.”

Allen v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFF. OF PHILADELPHIA

644 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is “ ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.’ ” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Mitchell v. … In considering the second prong of the Saucier test, the Third Circuit clarified that “[a] right is clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Lewis v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

246 F. Supp. 3d 979 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2017

Public officials sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) a constitutional right was [not] violated or (2) the right was not clearly established [at the time of the violation].” … Rather, Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is based on the contention that the Complaint does not. include facts establishing the underlying constitutional violations, which the Court has rejected. VI.

Rita F. Marsh, Cross-Appellee v. Dorothy Arn, Delores Furrow, Cross-Appellant

937 F.2d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 1991

The scope of qualified immunity is well stated by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ”); Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass’n v.

King v. Jefferies

402 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2005

clearly established answers. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” qualified immunity should be granted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Wark v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P.3d 711 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2002

Because the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, we may not disturb it. B. … Although the county argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred under the qualified immunity doctrine, the trial court's ruling is primarily based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

Schulthies v. National Passenger Rr Corp.

650 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2009

The defense 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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear

Egolf v. Witmer

421 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2006

Defendants Are Entitled To Qualified Immunity Because A Reasonable Person Would Not Have Believed They Were Violating Clearly Established Rights. … The Supreme Court has directed that regardless of whether the rights at issue are ones that “a reasonable person would have known” or are “clearly established,” I must begin my evaluation of a qualified immunity defense by

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Dept.

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's … the first hurdle in defeating the defendants' qualified immunity defense. 13 The second part of our qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

Howard Ex Rel. Estate of Howard v. Bayes

378 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 5, 2005

Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Right Determining whether a government official was performing a discretionary act, however, does not end the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, Bayes is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions as there is no evidence that he violated a clearly established federal right. B.

Doane v. Helenville Mutual Insurance Co.

216 Wis. 2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 29, 1998

Rather, the parties' *352 disagreement centers on whether Ehle qualifies as an "owner" entitled to immunity under the statute either because his shanty constitutes a statutory "structure," or because he is an "occupier," … CONCLUSION A portable ice shanty located on a frozen lake does not qualify as recreational "property" and is insufficient to establish its owner as an "occupant" of the lake entitled to recreational immunity.

Medeiros v. Merced County Sheriff Deputy Clark

713 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2010

Qualified immunity serves to shield 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 … Thus, Satterfield is not entitled to *1063 qualified immunity for these alleged acts, because they violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. Id. at 1005-1007. See also Bretz v.

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners

582 F.3d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … -24- concluding that statement two was a true threat under clearly established federal law) cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the law is not clearly established and qualified

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.

E. Stephen Dean v. Thomas K. Byerley

354 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2004

Therefore, Dean has satisfied the second hurdle necessary to survive summary judgment based upon qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right was clearly established. … qualified immunity. 14 *559 III.