Case law

Carswell v. Borough Of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

constitutional sense and the ruling on qualified immunity. … Saucier emphasized that the inquiry for qualified immunity eligibility is distinct from establishment of a constitutional violation of excessive force.

Peter Klassen v. Gaines County, Texas, and Gaines County Deputy Sheriffs Ken Ketron and Clint Low

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Jul 15, 2021

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time. … doctrine of qualified immunity only applies to “individuals.”

Creech v. Eckerd Corp.

56 Va. Cir. 407 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Sep 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Recently in Saucier v. Katz, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of qualified immunity. No. 991977 (June 18,2001). … If the right was not clearly established or it would not be clear to a reasonable officer, in the same situation, that his conduct was unlawful, a court is entitled to grant summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

HASSUNEH v. City of Minneapolis

560 F. Supp. 2d 764 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 29, 2008

Here, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Qualified immunity shields government officials as well as private individuals from civil liability under § 1983. … Second, the alleged right must be clearly established. Id.

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.

Hampton Co. Nat. Sur., LLC v. Tunica County, Miss.

543 F.3d 221 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 18, 2008

An uncertain right cannot be “a clearly established” right. Qualified immunity applies to the claim that Sheriff Hamp violated Due Process rights. … Unlike in the determination of qualified immunity for the Sheriff, the County cannot rely on there being no clearly established right when the Sheriff acted.

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.

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

Hurt v. Parker

462 S.W.3d 403 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 1, 2015

established priorities and needs.” … Thus, the principal was entitled to qualified immunity.

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

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.

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.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

808 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

‐ immunity  grounds  because,  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  conduct,  although there was a clearly established right to be free from abuse  of  process  under  New  York  law,  there  was  no  clearly  established  right … We  need  not,  and  do  not,  resolve  this  confusion  here,  as  its  very  existence  establishes  that  Nudo  is  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.8  “[T]he  qualified  immunity  defense . . . provides  ample  protection

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.

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.