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.

Taylor v. Alabama

95 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 19, 2000

Similarly, “[ujnder the qualified immunity defense,” these Defendants “are immune from liability if [Plaintiffs Complaint] fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional right [ ] of which a reasonable … In other words, Harris, Bass, Butts, Rushing and Woodham “are immune from liability” on the basis of qualified immunity because Plaintiffs Complaint “fails to state a violation of a ‘clearly established ... constitutional

Gordon v. Mt. Carmel Farms, L.L.C.

2021 Ohio 1233 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2021

Under this defense, "[p]ublic officials, including police officers, who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that either (1) a constitutional right was violated or (2) that the right was clearly established, -7-

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

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.

Cannon v. Polk County/Polk County Sheriff

68 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · District Court, D. Oregon · Dec 18, 2014

Second, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. … Even if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the violation, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable. Id. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

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

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

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

Holloway v. Lamar County

180 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 8, 2016

“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 person … Therefore, because a reasonable officer would have known that tasing Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, the Court does not find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and will

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.

Dominguez v. Figueroa Sancha

373 F. Supp. 3d 333 · United States District Court · Feb 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity [A] public actor's liability under [ § ] 1983 is not absolute: the doctrine of qualified immunity provides a safe harbor for a wide range of mistaken judgments. *348 Cox v. … Predictably, they now move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, so the court will give it a second go. The qualified immunity inquiry "entails a two-step pavane." Alfano v.

Eldredge v. TOWN OF FALMOUTH, MA

662 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 22, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity is designed to "balance[] two important interests – the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and … Because a finding that a right was not "clearly established" under the second prong of the analysis is sufficient to warrant a grant of qualified immunity, see id. at 236-37, discussion of the first prong will in some

United States v. Jacob De La Fuente

353 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2003

LAHD’s tests established that the white powder in De La Fuente’s letters was not anthrax. … establish that the defendant’s actual offense qualifies as a crime of violence.

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.

Davis v. DiPino

99 Md. App. 282 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 23, 1994

Was Detective DiPino entitled to qualified immunity in the claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ? B. … The federal constitutional right that the plaintiff claims has been violated must have been “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

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

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