Case law

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 .

Britt v. Garcia

457 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for ‘government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … subjected to such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or that the appellants’ actions were objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

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

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 .

Patricia McCardle Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Jonathan Haddad, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

131 F.3d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 21, 1997

Qualified Immunity Haddad’s “alternative! … Qualified immunity, which shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

State v. Jones

213 Neb. 1 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1982

The court specifically found that the defendant’s immunized testimony established that, although the defendant in this case was not the actual killer in the Iowa case, “he was clearly liable, but for the State of Iowa’s grant … The court then held that the second clause of aggravating circumstance (l)(a) was clearly applicable beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the defendant’s previous involvement in the Iowa murder reflected by the immunized

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.

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.

Patrizi v. Huff

821 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2011

The Right is Clearly Established The Court must next consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity — whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Saucier v. … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

Ellsberg v. Mitchell

670 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1984

on the Supreme Court’s new qualified immunity test enunciated in Harlow v. … Harlow disposed of the “subjective” aspect of qualified immunity and held that courts should examine only the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to ‘clearly established’ law.”

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

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission

844 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1994

A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages as long as the official could reasonably believe that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity is rarely established upon a motion to dismiss and because insufficient information is contained in the complaint to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the court finds that

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

Binkowski v. Family & Children's Services Agency

39 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 3, 1998

It is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that the right to due process of law is “clearly established” under the Fourteenth Amendment. … However, qualified immunity applies only to individuals, not government entities. See, e.g., Leatherman 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.

Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia

322 F. Supp. 3d 175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity-no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Phelan v. Village of Lyons

531 F.3d 484 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

On appeal, Phelan maintains that Officer Dyas was not entitled to qualified immunity for the felony traffic stop. … Phelan construes this argument as an attempt by Officer Dyas to append a “third prong” to the qualified immunity inquiry: namely, whether the officer’s actions were reasonable even if they violated clearly established law

HASSUNEH v. City of Minneapolis

560 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 29, 2008

Here, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials as well as private individuals from civil liability under § 1983. … Second, the alleged right must be clearly established. Id.

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.