Case law

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.

Robert N. Wallin v. Silas Norman

317 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2003

For the most part, government employees are protected from civil suits, except to the extent that their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The issue of whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings has clearly not been decided, because the district court did not address the merits of the motion.

James E. Phillips, II v. WV DHHR d/b/a Mitchell Bateman Hospital

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

rights or laws that were clearly established and of which a reasonable person would have known or whether those actions were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … The circuit court applied established jurisprudence from this Court in finding that the DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity.

Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams

451 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2006

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … There is no question that the second step – clearly established – is satisfied, as it is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thornton v.

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Orange v. County of Grundy

950 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 12, 1996

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … that their conduct violated any of plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Crandel v. Hastings

75 F.4th 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Again, when defendants assert qualified immunity, “a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

156 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. The defense of qualified immunity is available to federal officials acting in the scope of their employment. … Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation.

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Copper v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Dec 30, 1994

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge’s qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if 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 action did not violate

Hiller v. Ramsey

District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 3, 2020

The court further concluded that the officer’s use of excessive force violated clearly established law, so the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Hiller met his burden to show that Ramsey’s conduct violated clearly established law, Ramsey is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Hiller’s claim.

Marsilio v. Vigluicci

924 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 14, 2013

Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of establishing that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 20, p. 6. … that was clearly established at the time in question.

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful

Phillips v. Community Ins. Corp.

678 F.3d 513 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken *528 was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officer … They argue that if the law had clearly established that use of an SL6 was unlawful, police departments would no longer retain the weapon in their arsenal. The defendants misconstrue the qualified immunity analysis.

Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi

272 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Virgili challenges the district court’s ruling that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because her Fourth Amendment right against a strip-search was not “clearly established” at the time of search. We AFFIRM. … The district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Virg-ili’s right against the search .was not “clearly established” at

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11

678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004

Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.

Deutsch v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

737 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1990

The question of whether a right is clearly established is one of law, Yalkut v. … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

J.R. v. Gloria

593 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

They asserted, among other grounds, a qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and immunity to the state law negligence claims based on Rhode Island's state sovereign immunity and state qualified immunity law. … We need not address whether any such "right" would have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Saucier v.

Ngong Garang v. City of Ames

2 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” … In conducting this analysis, we “may review the legal issues whether conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law,” but “cannot review whether a factual dispute is genuine.” Sok Kong v.