Case law

Antoinette Wonsey v. City of Chicago

940 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2019

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (citations omitted). … Wonsey offers no contrary argument, and she does not point to any violation of statutory or constitu- tional rights, much less clearly established ones. So qualified immunity cloaks defendants’ actions on June 9.

Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

345 F. Supp. 3d 855 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 5, 2018

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Nonetheless, Linder is still entitled to qualified immunity for this claim if the constitutional rights implicated were not clearly established.

United States v. Jacob De La Fuente

353 F.3d 766 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2003

LAHD’s tests established that the white powder in De La Fuente’s letters was not anthrax. … establish that the defendant’s actual offense qualifies as a crime of violence.

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

732 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 19, 1990

Those Courts go on to reason that if the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail. Id. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune. Id.

Michael Hogan v. James Carter

85 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 4, 1996

It is well established that government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity not only from damage liability but from suit, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Eileen McAfee v. Christine Boczar

738 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2013

Qualified immunity serves to protect a government official from liability for civil damages unless the facts alleged show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right … And this constitutional right is clearly established. See Miller v.

Melgar Ex Rel. Melgar v. Greene

593 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 29, 2010

The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for fear of allowing plaintiffs “to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply … In light of the foregoing principles, we hold that qualified immunity is appropriate because Officer Greene did not violate clearly established law in his search for a missing boy who faced serious potential injury.

Nigro v. Carrasquillo

152 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2015

Accordingly, Officer Carrasquillo is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wood v.

Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center

891 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 14, 1995

Nor does it follow that the Court intended to establish a bright line rule that private parties can never be shielded by qualified immunity. … This immunity is only defeated if the official took the complained of action “with the mahcious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Peterson v. Foley

559 S.W.3d 346 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2018

Qualified Immunity For purposes of determining qualified immunity for government officials, the duties of those officials are categorized as either ministerial or discretionary. … Although the arguments advanced by the parties on appeal primarily concern the issue of qualified immunity, it is well-established that this Court may affirm the trial court for any reason in the record. E.g., Ky.

Parker v. Lane

688 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1988

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final contention is that they are immune from suit because their conduct did not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) makes clear, qualified immunity encompasses not only immunity from liability but immunity from suit.

Johnson v. Morris

445 N.W.2d 563 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Oct 19, 1989

If the law allegedly violated is clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since reasonably competent public officials should know the law governing their conduct. Harlow v. … that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. * * * ” Id.

Glen Delaney v. George Detella, Glenn Malone, Christopher Hughes, Eugene McAdory Clarence Wright, Donald Burns, and David Walker

256 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

Having found that Delaney has alleged a constitutional violation, we consider whether the right he asserts was clearly established prior to the spring of 1996. “ ‘[C]learly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity … On this record, Judge Coar was right to deny the qualified immunity plea of all defendants.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

765 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

“An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, despite having engaged in constitutionally deficient conduct, if, in doing so, she did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the common-law privilege Defendants invoke overlaps with but is harder to establish than qualified immunity, the Defendants’ argument on that score “fails for essentially the same reasons already set forth.”

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton’s right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Lal v. California

746 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 31, 2014

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. at 440 (quoting Pearson v. … In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer

Jackson v. City Of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects &#167 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 12 In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light

Farrelly v. City of Concord

902 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 2, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, 1(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce . … Even so, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

KRISTINA MOFFATT VS. PARSIPPANY TROY HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-2437-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2018

Immunity applies when snow or ice is the alleged cause of the accident. … Super. at 269 ("In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial

Arnold v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

843 F. Supp. 110 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 3, 1994

Certainly, its applicability is not “clearly established,” which calls into play the qualified immunity of Defendants. … “Government officials who are sued for damages under § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established