Case law

Wheeler v. City of Lansing

677 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 6, 2010

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. Reynolds v. … On qualified immunity analysis, this court’s duty is to ascertain what our Circuit’s clearly established law was on the date of the challenged search.

Peters v. City of Buffalo

848 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Having found that Clark and Marusak are not entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal may nevertheless be proper if their actions are entitled to qualified immunity. … Officials are protected from § 1983 liability by qualified immunity if their actions (1) did not violate clearly established law or (2) were objectively reasonable. See Warren v. Keane, 196 F.3d 330 , 332 (2d Cir.1999).

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Kebe v. Brown

161 F. Supp. 2d 634 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 12, 2001

granted qualified immunity. … Officers are “entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity if they can establish that reasonable officers could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of both clearly established law and

Demilo-Fytros v. City of Mount Vernon

993 F. Supp. 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 1998

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … the current record that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

McCormack v. Livergood

353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he

Timmins v. Toto

91 F. App'x 165 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 5, 2004

To establish qualified immunity in § 1983 claims, a defendant must show “either ‘(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … Whatever rule Walsh established, that rule was not clearly established at the time of the chase. Toto is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Abromaitis, 294 F.3d at 360 .

Carrasquillo v. Aponte Roque

682 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 9, 1988

those rights was ‘clearly established in plaintiff's favor.’ ” Juarbe-Angueira v. … Put another way, “only where the action in question is clearly unlawful does a defendant lose his qualified immunity.” Juarbe-Angueira, 831 F.2d at 12 (emphasis in original).

Dorris v. City of McKinney

214 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 4, 2016

“A plaintiff seeking to defeat qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “The law is clearly established that a public employee may be neither discharged nor demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment Rights.” Cox, 577 Fed.Appx. at 313 .

Walter v. Pike County, Pennsylvania

465 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

If the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … See, e.g., Smith, 318 F.3d at 510 (finding that the state-created danger doctrine was clearly established by the year 1999).

Mignon Marie Stone v. Richard Holzberger Richard A. Carpenter Richard Sizemore William Profitt Terry Payer

23 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

[or qualified immunity] turns, such that it cannot be determined before trial whether the defendants did acts that violate clearly established rights.... 37 Poe v. … Once a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, "[o]n summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action

Brenes-Laroche v. Toledo Davila

682 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 26, 2010

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 … In conducting our qualified immunity analysis, we take the Plaintiffs facts as true for purposes of determining whether Defendants have violated his constitutional rights and whether the right at issue was clearly established

Richard Lemarbe v. Jerome J. Wisneski, Sharon Fairbanks Dennis Straub

266 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 19, 2001

such violated right was clearly established. … Clearly Established Right We also conclude that Le-Marbe has successfully proven that the allegedly violated right was clearly established.

Akron v. Pari

2019 Ohio 1083 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2019

Pasco’s motion to dismiss because the unambiguous language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) limits immunity to minor drug possession offenses. … This Court concluded that the terms of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2) are unambiguous: The plain language of R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) clearly provides qualified individuals with immunity for a minor drug possession offense

Barnes v. Dale

530 So. 2d 770 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 24, 1988

Paul answered the complaint on January 3, 1986, and raised "qualified immunity" as an affirmative defense. Harpole, Dr. Barnes, and Dr. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Beverly Getz v. J. Swoap

833 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2016

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order.

DeBellis v. Kulp

166 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The next inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the encounter.

Rivera-Ramos v. Roman

156 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1998

Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not idolate “clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known” at the time … In sum, we conclude that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity rested upon a mistakenly abstract view of what is clearly established law and that the case must be remanded for further consideration of the qualified