Case law

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.

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 .

Patrizi v. Huff

821 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2011

The Right is Clearly Established The Court must next consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity — whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Saucier v. … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

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.

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

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.

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.

Beverly Getz v. J. Swoap

833 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2016

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brown v. City of Milwaukee

288 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Garcia violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of 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

Patricia McCardle Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Jonathan Haddad, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

131 F.3d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 21, 1997

Qualified Immunity Haddad’s “alternative! … Qualified immunity, which shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.

DeBellis v. Kulp

166 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The next inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the encounter.

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

Rivera-Ramos v. Roman

156 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1998

Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not idolate “clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known” at the time … In sum, we conclude that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity rested upon a mistakenly abstract view of what is clearly established law and that the case must be remanded for further consideration of the qualified

State v. Jones

213 Neb. 1 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1982

The court specifically found that the defendant’s immunized testimony established that, although the defendant in this case was not the actual killer in the Iowa case, “he was clearly liable, but for the State of Iowa’s grant … The court then held that the second clause of aggravating circumstance (l)(a) was clearly applicable beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the defendant’s previous involvement in the Iowa murder reflected by the immunized