Case 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.

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. .

Doe v. Methacton School District

880 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual Methacton Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all constitutional claims against them. The burden to show immunity is on the defendant. … The test for whether qualified immunity should be applied is whether: (1) government officials (2) performed discretionary functions (3) that did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (4) of which

Williams v. Greifinger

918 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 30, 1996

Therefore, defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages. III. … That is a separate issue which goes to qualified immunity, and it is examined below. See Davis v.

Noland v. Wheatley

835 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 1993

Qualified immunity provides a defense to conduct which “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … The defendants claim entitlement to qualified immunity, contending that the ADA was not clearly established law during the time in which the conduct that Mr. Noland alleges occurred.

Richardson v. Nassau County Medical Center

840 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a civil action if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Whether the government official can benefit from qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was

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.”

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court

288 F. Supp. 3d 789 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2018

Qualified Immunity for Stevens and Smith "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 … Therefore, Stevens is entitled to qualified immunity on all of Curtis's state law claims. 4.

Lee-Walker v. New York City Department of Education

712 F. App'x 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

We conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … For these reasons we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the claim against the individual- defendants on qualified immunity grounds.

Kennedy v. Osmanski, III

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2022

Moreno, 919 F.3d 582, 600-01 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding that FBI agents were not entitled to qualified immunity in a Bivens action arising from a warrantless search of plaintiff’s home in … Moreover, First Circuit precedent establishes the viability of Bivens claims in the aftermath of an unreasonable search during a routine law enforcement investigation. See DeMayo v.

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.

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).