Case law

Newcomb v. City of Troy

719 F. Supp. 1408 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 18, 1989

The “clearly established law” at the time Plaintiff was seized by Officer Denny permitted the application of deadly force in limited circumstances. … The claims against Officer Denny are dismissed above on the basis of qualified immunity under Anderson v. Creighton, supra.

Donald Xiques v. Charme Knight

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 21, 2003

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering … Plaintiff argues that the issues in these two cases are not identical, because the Sixth Circuit opinion merely dealt with the issue of qualified immunity, and whether or not defendant had violated “clearly established law

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.

Castle v. Appalachian Technical College

631 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity from liability for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

Spruytte v. Hoffner

197 F. Supp. 2d 931 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2001

The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior … because the law was not clearly established.

Murphy v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.

76 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1999

qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Having determined that qualified immunity is generally available to the Board Defendants, it remains to determine whether their assertion of it satisfies the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court

Theadore Black v. Thomas A. Coughlin III

76 F.3d 72 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 9, 1996

immunity a “defendant must establish that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his act violated no clearly established rights,” id. at 54 ), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1837 , 131 L.Ed.2d 756 (1995); Walker … Moreover, to the extent that Black claims that Ryan was biased against him, it is not a given that Ryan would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, for it has long been clearly established that an inmate subject

Parsons v. McCann

138 F. Supp. 3d 1086 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Sep 30, 2015

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and absolute immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. a. … State officials enjoy qualified immunity from a § 1983 action if their conduct did not violaté “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Richardson v. Nassau County Medical Center

840 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a civil action if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Whether the government official can benefit from qualified immunity “turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was

Margarito Salmon, Magdalena Salmon, Individually and as Next Friend for Margarito Salmon, Jr. v. Martin R. Schwarz and Arturo A. Gonzalez

948 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 1991

In Morfin , a qualified immunity case, the court was asked to decide for the first time whether the plaintiffs, teachers, had a clearly established right in 1985 to associate with a labor union other than their exclusive … deciding whether or not a right was clearly established.”

Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village

739 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 31, 2013

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gann v. … Clearly established right We also hold that the individual defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the second requirement for § 1983 qualified immunity because Sgt.

Robinson v. White County

452 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1338 , 164 L.Ed.2d 53 (2006), the test for qualified immunity is: 10 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established.

Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ.

399 N.J. Super. 329 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 2008

She reiterated her conclusion that they were entitled to a qualified immunity as state actors. … Thus, the motion judge erred in granting the JCMC a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.7 and the summary judgment as to the JCMC on the ground of a qualified immunity is reversed. IX.

Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey

245 F.3d 869 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 18, 2001

For the reasons set. forth below, we deny Duffey’s request for qualified immunity. … clearly established” and reasoned that “[t]he right must be asserted according to the Fourth Amendment because the Supreme Court, in Albright v.

Galloway v. City of Abbeville

871 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2012

Qualified immunity on Galloway’s unlawful arrest claim (Count B) Duhaime also invokes the qualified immunity doctrine to shield him from Galloway’s Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim. … Historically the Supreme Court required lower courts to decide the constitutional issue before inquiring into whether the claimed right was clearly established. See, e.g., Scott v.

Smith v. College of the Mainland

63 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 30, 2014

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … In other words, for purposes of qualified immunity, the illegality of First Amendment retaliation is clearly established when the officials “do not have any relevant, legitimate interests to put on their side of the Pickering

Thomas v. Holt

221 Ga. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 9, 1996

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Duran v. City Of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: "[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' … The legal issues involved in that appeal--whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections--are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar's qualified immunity.

Cavanagh v. Taranto

95 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2015

What an Objectively Reasonable Official Would Believe Under the Circumstances Although the right Cavanagh alleges is clearly established, to avoid qualified immunity the bounds and contours of a violation of that right must … suicide — “violated clearly established law.”