Case law

Boyer v. Petersen

221 F. Supp. 3d 943 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 27, 2016

Legal Framework: Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Chief Campbell is entitled to qualified immunity. Chief Campbell, on the other hand, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ratté v. Corrigan

989 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 26, 2013

Hartsfield is not entitled to qualified immunity Hartsfield contends that, to the extent she is not absolutely immune, she is entitled to qualified immunity. She is mistaken. … When government officials perform discretionary functions, they are immune from suit through qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Santiago v. Fields

170 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Also, at the time of the events at issue, plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right against excessive force was clearly established.

Dempsey v. Denver Police Department

353 P.3d 928 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 21, 2015

hazards" as "rain, fog, smoke, crowded traffic conditions, or many pedestrians crossing and re-crossing the roadway, perhaps unlawfully, after a parade, or the like," and noting that those kinds of conditions had not been established … zone from so qualifying.

Jerald Davis v. William Owens

973 F.2d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

The parties, however, assert that this court reviews a district court’s denial of qualified immunity under the clearly erroneous standard enunciated in Hughes v. … Qualified Immunity Public officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace

678 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2012

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which … We exercise our discretion to consider prong one of the qualified immunity analysis first.

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Jones v. Lieber

579 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Durham v. Rapp

64 F. Supp. 3d 740 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 9, 2014

Qualified immunity turns on two inquiries: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of ■ a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.

Nagle v. Marron

663 F.3d 100 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity 4 Although the statutory text of § 1983 provides for no immunities, it has been read “‘in 5 harmony with general principles of tort immunities’” to provide qualified immunity for most … Id.; see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 (“If the law did not put the officer on 7 notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified 8 immunity is appropriate.”). 9 The

Stanley v. Muzio

578 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 26, 2008

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages caused by the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct does not violate a clearly established … If the court finds a potential violation, it next must determine whether, considering the facts of the case before it, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Saucier v.

Mearday v. City of Chicago

196 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … At the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the burden of demonstrating a clearly established constitutional right lies with the plaintiff.

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Matter of Public Law No. 154-1990

561 N.E.2d 791 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1990

The immunity provisions of the Attorney Trust Account Act clearly and literally attempt to exercise by limitation the attorney disciplinary function of the judicial department. … Apart from the attorney discipline immunity provisions, the Attorney Trust Account Act establishes a fund to receive proceeds from interest generated from attorney trust accounts and a board to establish procedures and oversee

Bird v. State Through Corbin

170 Ariz. 20 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 21, 1991

and (2) qualified immunity, which is available for nondiscretionary acts. … The licensing and regulation of any profession or occupation falls within the grant of absolute immunity, not qualified immunity.

Grant v. Davis

537 So. 2d 7 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 23, 1988

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. … The duty to inspect the roads is an affirmative duty but one that also involves a type of discretion giving rise to qualified immunity.

Conde v. City of Atl. City

293 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Proceeding with the qualified immunity analysis regarding Officer Smith's use of deadly force, the Court finds that Mack's right to be free from excessive, deadly force was clearly established on the night of the shooting

Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila

39 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 1999

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly—established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we find that Defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Teresa Garcia, a Minor, by Her Next Friends Max and Sandra Garcia v. Theresa Miera, J.D. Sanchez, Edward Leyba, Judi Mestas, and Felix Duran

817 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 28, 1987

. § 1983 by qualified immunity. … Determination of qualified immunity is now to be based “on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Elder v. Holloway

874 F. Supp. 278 · District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 31, 1995

The Positions Taken by the Parties In support of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Holloway essentially contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity based on the fact that: (1) the law was not so clearly established … Thus, in reconsidering the qualified immunity issue herein in light of Alr-Azzawy and all other relevant authority, this court finds that Defendant Holloway is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly