Case law

Paul v. City of Rochester

452 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it had not been clearly established that tackling plaintiff under the circumstances constituted excessive force); Soares … The City did not raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. 8 .

Brogdon v. City of New Rochelle

200 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2002

Furthermore, both Benge and Chiera are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court has recently defined what it means for a law to be “clearly established” in the context of a qualified immunity defense: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘the contours

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

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.

Frohriep v. Flanagan

278 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Lower level officers, *677 employees, and agents are extended only qualified immunity. This immunity exists when the individual is engaged in discretionary acts which are performed in good faith. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.”

Ecclesiastical Washington v. Larry Denney

900 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

The officials appeal, arguing that (1) Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity; and … Discussion The corrections officials appeal, arguing that (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity because Washington failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove that they violated his clearly established Eighth

Brockington v. Boykins

637 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

The court also denied Boykins’ motion to dismiss on the doctrine of qualified immunity in a one-sentence order that contained no reasoning. The denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appeal- able order. … "Qualified immunity shields government officials perform- ing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Don A. Brawner v. City of Richardson, Texas, L.F. Eudy, Richardson Police Department Director, and Kenneth Yarbrough, Chief of Police

855 F.2d 187 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 18, 1988

established at the time he was fired so as to preclude their asserting a claim of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is a defense for public officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 19 “Clearly established” means

Williams v. City of Montgomery

21 F. Supp. 2d 1360 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 16, 1998

However, the necessity for detailed pleadings is especially apparent in cases involving qualified immunity, where the court must determine whether an individual defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. … Murphy is entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v.

Walker v. Prieto

414 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 3, 2006

Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Thompson v. Penna. Parole Board Member Jefferson

544 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1982

The case was remanded to this court for further factual development to determine whether Jefferson was entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and, if Jefferson was entitled to qualified immunity, whether he could satisfy … The Court held that governmental officials are entitled to immunity so long as they “do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Yoder, J. v. McCarthy Const., Inc

291 A.3d 1 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 31, 2023

Whether [JNOV] is required because [McCarthy] is clearly entitled to statutory[-]employer immunity? 2. … McCarthy’s Brief at 9.11 First Issue In McCarthy’s first issue, it asserts that JNOV is required because it is clearly entitled to statutory-employer immunity. Id. at 20.

Dooley v. St. Louis County

187 S.W.3d 882 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2006

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under [Section] 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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

Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield

924 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, D. Maine · Apr 12, 1996

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Id. … The qualified immunity inquiry begins, as always, with the alleged clearly established rights at issue. Here too the inquiry ends.

Wachtler v. County Of Herkimer

35 F.3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 9, 1994

Vehicle & Traffic Law Sec. 1800(a). 20 We have held that the Fourth Amendment proscription of strip-searches of misdemeanor arrestees without reasonable suspicion is clearly enough established to preclude the defense of qualified … Thus, the individual defendants involved in the strip-search are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 23 Herkimer County, however, does not have qualified immunity, Owen v.

Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

299 Ga. 301 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2016

(d) Special Privileges and Immunities: Pursuant to Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, § I, Par. … Jacobi was not qualified under the statute. This leaves only the two affidavits filed by Dr.

David W. Landrum v. Al Gomez

37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 1994

II 5 When qualified immunity applies, the shield from section 1983 liability for damages will be lifted only if the party's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Landrum had a clearly established constitutional right to marry, see Turner v.

William J. Benson v. William J. Scott and Herbert Caplan

734 F.2d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 2, 1984

the state, violated clearly established procedures of which a reasonable person should have been aware. … As we noted above, Harlow dictates that a claim of qualified immunity by an executive official must be sustained if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Keller v. Elyea

496 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

Elyea was entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that he had a clearly established constitutional right to have his medical conditions addressed, and that his letters sufficed to establish Dr. … The district court indeed viewed this issue through too narrow a lens: there need not be a case “on all fours,” with identical facts, in order for a constitutional right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified