Case law

Doe Ex Rel. Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

597 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2010

Qualified immunity from § 1983 claims “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 … of clearly established law.”); Swanson v.

Grammens v. Dollar

287 Ga. 618 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2010

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. [Cit.] … Qualified immunity “protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.” [Cit.]

Parker v. Gerrish

547 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2008

Though the motion did not refer to "qualified immunity" or to "clearly established law," Gerrish contends he adequately raised that issue. … Gerrish did not refer to "clearly established law" and made no effort to address his argument to qualified immunity.

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 513, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 835 Mary Ann Carlo v. City of Chino, and Officer Hector Guerra

105 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Further, the court held that even if such a right does exist, it was not clearly established when Carlo was arrested; and, therefore, Guerra was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity asks what law was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. In 1991, the Helms test was the clearly established law.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

809 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey

245 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 2001

For the reasons set. forth below, we deny Duffey’s request for qualified immunity. … clearly established” and reasoned that “[t]he right must be asserted according to the Fourth Amendment because the Supreme Court, in Albright v.

Dudek v. Nassau County Sheriff's Department

991 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 19, 2013

The standard for qualified immunity is "objective,” and not "subjective,” reasonableness, "as measured by reference to clearly established law” about which a "reasonably competent public official should know.” … for qualified immunity purposes. .

Dobson v. Harris

352 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2000

App. 660 , 233 S.E.2d 624 (1977) (summary judgment appropriately entered against the plaintiff where the defendant supported motion by establishing affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and the plaintiff, who thereafter … In her answer defendant Harris asserted the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity,” or, more precisely, a statutory, good-faith immunity based upon her compliance with N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-543 and -550.

Austin v. Hamilton

945 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

Qualified Immunity In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the court must determine *1161 the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct by reference to the law clearly established at the time of the alleged … That standard was clearly established at the time the challenged incident took place.” Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1461-62 (10th Cir.1991).

Haavisto v. Perpich

520 N.W.2d 727 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Aug 19, 1994

An official will not be personally liable under § 1983 if the official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and that the constitutional right violated was a clearly established constitutional right in 1982 of which a reasonable prison administrator would have known.

Parsons v. McCann

138 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 30, 2015

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. a. … State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violaté “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Provencio v. Vazquez

258 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2009

immunity because the violation was not “clearly established.” cf. … Turning to the two factors for qualified immunity identified in Saucier the court on this issue will first inquire into whether the right was “clearly established.”

Michael A. White v. Madeline Holmes Charles Rosenkoetter

21 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1994

In their motion for summary judgment, Holmes and Rosenkoetter argued they did not violate any clearly established laws and are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 In a supplemental motion for summary judgment, the defendants … is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Sonnier v. Crain

649 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 30, 2009

A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time of his or her actions. McClendon v. … For a constitutional right to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. 4 Hope

Ashfaq v. Anderson

603 F. Supp. 2d 936 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2009

Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 10), on the basis of qualified immunity. … Ashfaq has failed to allege a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, Dr. Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Ashfaq’s § 1983 claim should be and hereby is DISMISSED.

Loumiet v. United States of America

255 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2017

, and qualified immunity. 1. … basis of qualified immunity.

Reese v. York

571 F. Supp. 1046 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 22, 1983

The objective component is concerned with whether or not the officer knew or should *1049 have known that his actions violated clearly established law at the time. … To deny him qualified immunity protection unless he goes further and demonstrates that his actions were above the benchmark of legal good faith, would make the concept of qualified immunity a meaningless embelishment.”

Alana Crutcher-Sanchez v. James L. Wagner

687 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified 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 … A qualified immunity analysis involves: first, whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Henry Greer, Administrator of the Estate of Mora Patricia Greer v. Stanley D. Shoop Ronald Dohrman Thomas L. Frisch

141 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 1998

Therefore, we hold that the contours of the state-created danger theory, as applied to the unique facts of this case, were not defined clearly enough in 1991 to remove the defendants’ qualified immunity protection. 3 Greer … According to Greer, because the defendants would be indemnified, there is no reason to provide them with qualified immunity.