Case law

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

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 would have known … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich

408 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

However, the law of qualified immunity does not require a plaintiff to produce a case that is "directly on point" in order to show that a right is clearly established. Nabozny v. … Kiddy-Brown has alleged sufficient facts to meet the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry. 2. 36 We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law was clearly established when Ms.

Mearday v. City of Chicago

196 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … At the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the burden of demonstrating a clearly established constitutional right lies with the plaintiff.

Robert Painter v. Bill Robertson Robert Tush

185 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

On review, the plaintiff has contended that qualified immunity was unavailable to the defendants because clearly established federal law directed that law enforcement authorities may not frisk a citizen for weapons purportedly … Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. Id.

Flowers v. Bennett

123 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established law. … Public officials, including correctional officers, are protected from actions brought against them in their individual capacities by qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional

Tittle v. Raines

231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002

Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.

Hbrandon Lee Flagner v. Reginald Wilkinson

241 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 22, 2001

After determining that a constitutional right is clearly established, the final step in our qualified immunity analysis is to inquire “whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts supported by sufficient evidence to … Because Flagner has not satisfied his burden to establish that the “defendant officials] violated a clearly established constitutional right,” Buckner, 36 F.3d at 539 , the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity solely

Fernez v. Calabrese

760 So. 2d 1144 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 7, 2000

The court pointed out that under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … If there are factual disputes, clearly they should be resolved by the trial court. [2] Rule 9.130 states a party must be denied sovereign or qualified immunity "as a matter of law," but this is not always easy to determine

Mayronne v. Vaught

843 F. Supp. 1096 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 23, 1994

Because it is not a clearly established constitutional right, Mr. Mayronne’s claims for malicious prosecution are barred by the theory of qualified immunity. 3. … Mayronne was not clearly established, thus barring his claim on the theory of qualified immunity. 4.

Thomson v. Salt Lake County

584 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2009

Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.2009). 2 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 816 (citing Anderson v. … An officer using force in the course of a seizure of a citizen is entitled to qualified immunity unless the level of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Jiron v. City of Lakewood

392 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

Having found no violation of a constitutional or statutory right, we need not address whether any such right was “clearly established.” … However, when a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation – i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity

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.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

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.

Larry E. Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs Andy Dalton Jay Henges John Powell Jerry J. Presley David Hurlbut

89 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. 3 Harlow v.

Jordan Jones v. George Solomon

90 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

“To overcome an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the … Under binding case law, however, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Violano v. Fernandez

280 Conn. 310 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 17, 2006

Specifically, the majority concluded that qualified governmental immunity applied to Fernandez’ alleged actions because they were discretionary in nature. Id., 12. … Further, the majority determined that none of the exceptions to Fernandez’ qualified governmental immunity applied. Id.

Dempsey v. Denver Police Department

353 P.3d 928 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 21, 2015

hazards" as "rain, fog, smoke, crowded traffic conditions, or many pedestrians crossing and re-crossing the roadway, perhaps unlawfully, after a parade, or the like," and noting that those kinds of conditions had not been established … zone from so qualifying.

Ronald Dean Brown v. Crispus C. Nix John Henry John Emmet Paul Hedgepath Charles Harper Paul Grossheim Hal Farrier

33 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

They asserted, among other things, that they are immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity. … In order to lose their qualified immunity, officials must violate an inmate’s clearly established constitutional rights. Id.