Case law

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

Cornell v. Woods

69 F.3d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 1995

Qualified Immunity 24 The prison officials claim that the district court committed error by refusing to grant them qualified immunity. This is an issue that we review de novo. See Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 . … Qualified immunity applies unless the officials' conduct violates " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Henderson, 29 F.3d at 467 (quoting Harlow v.

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

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.

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.

Wesley Taylor v. Richard K. Bowers, Carl Doerhoff, Kent Grewe, Maryland Butts, Helen Farr, Loren Stout

966 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

The case law that governs whether the defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense is well established. See, e.g., Givens, 900 F.2d at 1231 . … When the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Schatz Family v. Lynne Geirer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

-3-  The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage – whether immunity is established on the face of the … However, we take this opportunity to suggest that district courts clearly address the qualified immunity issue."), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 946 (1993).

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.

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.

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”

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.

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.

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.

Ayers v. Ryan

152 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 28, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary' official functions if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The district court concluded that Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity because Ayers could not “demonstrate that Ryan’s refusal to call certain witnesses was a clearly established violation of the Due Process Clause.”

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.

Leghart Ex Rel. Leghart v. Hauk

25 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 23, 1998

As such, “[qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v. … “The first step is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

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.

E.A.F.F. v. Gonzalez

600 F. App'x 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 16, 2015

The analysis of a defense of qualified immunity involves two steps. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Hernandez ex rel. … Whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right, as required under the first step of this court’s qualified immunity analysis, is not at issue.

Gaffey v. Illinois Dept of Juvenile Justice

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public officials from damages liability unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument against qualified immunity to be flawed, however, as it frames “clearly established” law at too high a level of generality.