Case law

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Herrera v. Davila

272 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 17, 2003

Id. 1) Qualified Immunity and Indifference to Medical Needs Qualified immunity shields officials from having to pay for damages resulting from violations of § 1983 provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established … it occurred, transgressed a clearly established right.”

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Hicks v. City of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review the denial of a qualified immunity claim de novo. McEvoy, 882 F.2d at 465 . … The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks’ clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri

760 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

Louis County, Missouri. 1 Officers Lively and Percich moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and St. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

Jane Doe v. Francis D. Phillips, Ii, Gerald D. D'amelia, Jr.

81 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 22, 1996

Qualified Immunity In support of his defense of qualified immunity, D’Amelia argues, inter alia, that he did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights because he and his colleagues knew of no ease holding … Government officials may enjoy a privilege of qualified immunity from liability for damages arising out of their performance of discretionary official functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

Risbridger v. Connelly

275 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Three other circuits, on the other hand, have held that a right to refuse to identify oneself during a valid Terry stop was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Oliver v. … Because the right must have been clearly established at the time the officer act *572 ed in order to defeat the claim to qualified immunity, we do not discuss the reasoning of these cases. .

Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

655 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

right was clearly established.” … When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hardy v.

Grossman v. Richards

722 A.2d 371 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 13, 1999

P. 56(b) on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed and Grossman failed to establish the elements of his claims. … Madura, 474 A.2d 166 (Me.1984), can be read to suggest that only a qualified immunity was intended, it is incorrect.

Dobos v. Driscoll

404 Mass. 634 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 19, 1989

Qualified immunity pursuant to § 1983. Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), the doctrine of qualified immunity applies only to “discretionary functions.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity has both an objective and a subjective element.

Aaron v. Shelley

624 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 12, 2010

An interlocutory order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). … As we see it, the most clearly established laws in sight are the well-settled summary judgment and qualified immunity principles violated by this contention. The appeal does not pass muster under Johnson v.

Essalene Lambert v. City of Dumas

187 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which the reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … The Appellee alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Britt v. Garcia

457 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for ‘government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … subjected to such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or that the appellants’ actions were objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

Candido v. Polymers, Inc.

166 Vt. 15 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Nov 8, 1996

Having found that Polymers qualifies as Candido’s employer under the statute, Polymers is immune from Candido’s attempted common-law negligence suit under the Act’s employer-immunity provision. 21 V.S.A. § 622. … Candido clearly accepted Polymers’s direction and control.

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Carrie Melear and Willie Stewart v. Wayne Spears, Etc., Ron Averitt, Etc.

862 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity. Avirett argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity in his personal capacity regarding the claims of both Stewart and Melear. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.

Gorman v. Mississippi

258 F. Supp. 3d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jul 11, 2017

right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”’” … immunity; the law was clearly established that “no reasonable officer could .have thought that this amount of force was legal under the circumstances,” even though there was no case directly on point.

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … immunity when probable cause is at issue is clearly erroneous and not de novo.