Case law

Mitchell v. Rice

954 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1992

On the other hand, if the law was not so clearly established as to give notice to a reasonable prison official, we must permit appellants an immunity defense and dismiss this case against them. … Because the record in this case does not adequately address all the issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, we cannot grant qualified immunity at this time.

Jubilee v. Horn

975 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The Court later clarified this objective test by explaining that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury

277 F. Supp. 3d 161 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2017

right that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Justice Thompson argued that the majority had construed “the clearly-established-right prong” of the qualified immunity analysis too narrowly, and required that the precedent be too directly on point before an official could

Hunt v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mex.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate *1260 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Thus, they cannot be used to demonstrate "clearly established law" within the meaning of a qualified immunity analysis.

Gorman v. Bartch

152 F.3d 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 1998

The defendants argue in response that their conduct did not violate clearly established rights under the statutes. 8 We review de novo the decision granting qualified immunity. Rowe v. … Id., 502 U.S. at 25-27 , 112 S.Ct. at 362. 20 The defense of qualified immunity gives government officials engaged in discretionary activities immunity from liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory

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.

Johnson v. Morris

445 N.W.2d 563 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 19, 1989

If the law allegedly violated is clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since reasonably competent public officials should know the law governing their conduct. Harlow v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. * * * ” Id.

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.

Meyer v. NILES TP., ILL.

477 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 24, 1979

Dunne Is Not Protected by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity. … To rebut the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right infringed was clearly established at the time of the action and the official “knew or reasonably should have known that

Rita Johnson v. City of Saginaw

980 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2020

Analysis Cabello and Stemple appeal the denial of qualified immunity.3 “This court reviews a district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified-immunity grounds de novo.” Quigley, 707 F.3d at 679. … “An assertion of qualified immunity may be overcome if the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.” United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 484-85 (6th Cir. 2014).

Waste Conversion, Inc. v. Sims

868 F. Supp. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1994

The court also found that the right to a prompt post-deprivation right was “clearly established,” and thus defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 7). … Finally, even if defendants did violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, these rights were not “clearly established,” and thus defendants are not liable under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

McKeon v. Daley

101 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 2000

Qualified immunity is available to protect conduct violating a clearly established constitutional right where the governmental official had an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. … of qualified immunity.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

765 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

“An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, despite having engaged in constitutionally deficient conduct, if, in doing so, she did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the common-law privilege Defendants invoke overlaps with but is harder to establish than qualified immunity, the Defendants’ argument on that score “fails for essentially the same reasons already set forth.”

Radloff v. City of Oelwein

284 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · May 19, 2003

Conclusions of Law Qualified Immunity A government official who performs discretionary functions is protected from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity as long as the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established … The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claim of excessive force. The right against unreasonable seizure of one’s person is clearly established law.

Bischoff v. Calhoun County Prosecutor

173 Mich. App. 802 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1988

which is essentially investigative or administrative and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., Inc

291 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2023

Whether [JNOV] is required because [McCarthy] is clearly entitled to statutory[-]employer immunity? 2. … McCarthy’s Brief at 9.11 First Issue In McCarthy’s first issue, it asserts that JNOV is required because it is clearly entitled to statutory-employer immunity. Id. at 20.

Badder v. Schmidt

50 F. Supp. 3d 902 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2014

with qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 816 .

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State University

899 F. Supp. 1561 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 22, 1995

In examining the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the Court in this case must: first inquire whether [Plaintiff] has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … has not demonstrated that such a constitutional right was “clearly established” for the purpose of refuting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. 20 When the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is raised, the Plaintiff