Case law

Toni Duncan v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Because Herron did not violate Duncan’s right to equal protection, this court needs not address the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established that Herron’s conduct violated Duncan

Searle v. Town of Bucksport

3 A.3d 390 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 31, 2010

The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. … The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building. 1.

Hart v. O'Brien

127 F.3d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1997

Generally speaking, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a “clearly established- [federal] statutory or constitutional … One important difference, however, is that official immunity does not incorporate the requirement that the plaintiff show the violation of a clearly established right.

Blue v. Koren

72 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 26, 1995

Circuit in Martin, 812 F.2d at 1432 , "[t]he 'clearly established law' and 'objective reasonableness' facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the 'clearly established law' … When such a motion is based on assertion of qualified immunity, the first issue is whether a clearly established right is at stake. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793 .

Parrish v. Nikolits

86 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

Once a public official or employee defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the "plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights' allegedly violated were "clearly established.' " … Plaintiffs also contend that Nikolits is not entitled to qualified immunity, because the Elrod and Branti decisions clearly established the constitutional rule of law that Nikolits' actions violated.

Cruz v. Green

352 F. Supp. 3d 1213 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 7, 2019

DISCUSSION Captain Green argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because she acted within the scope of her official duties and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. … See Callahan , 555 U.S. at 241 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (permitting district courts to evaluate whether § 1983 defendants violated clearly established law as the initial step in a qualified immunity analysis).

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Government officials such as police officers are not absolutely immune from suit, but rather only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The determination of qualified immunity necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right- was so “clearly established” as to alert

Timmons v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

887 F. Supp. 576 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1995

He argues, however, that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this portion of plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim. Good faith or qualified immunity is an affirmative defense in actions under § 1983. Harlow v. … Even where a right has been clearly established, a defendant is immune from liability if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his acts did not violate *581 that right. Anderson v.

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein

598 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we hold that qualified immunity *150 bars his federal constitutional claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly established rights.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues--whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise 3 Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Fleming v. Livingston County, Ill.

674 F.3d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The question of whether Turner actually had probable cause to arrest Fleming is separate from the question relating to qualified immunity.3 “Qualified immunity 3 Fleming asserts that “the court’s … immunity defense.5 As we have stated before, “[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune

Timothy Ryan v. Burlington County, New Jersey, and Burlington County, Harold Colburn, Jr., Michael J. Conda, Catherine A. Costa, Henry J. Metzger, Robert C. Shinn, Michael J. Hogan, and Burlington County Solicitor's Office, Defendants/third Party v. Maurice Scott, Third Party and John Bradman, Individually and Officially as Warden of Burlington County Jail, Defendants/third Party v. Maurice Scott, Third Party Appeal of Harold Colburn, Jr., Michael Conda, Catherine H. Costa, Henry J. Metzger and Robert C. Shinn, Jr

889 F.2d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. 24 Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 25 … , then those officials must be held accountable for instances where their actions violate clearly established rights.

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

Bird v. Lampert

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 15, 2020

(2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … Clearly Established Law But even if we assume that a constitutional violation occurred, defendants Lampert, Pacheco, and Weik would still be entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established

Gagne v. DeMarco

281 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 26, 2003

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court will address each of these arguments below after a general discussion of qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Ortiz v. Morris

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 27, 2020

Following discovery, Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Whether an officer is immune "turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the action] was taken" (quotations and citation omitted

Abila v. Funk

220 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 23, 2016

*1170 established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Cipes v. Graham

386 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 29, 2005

to qualified immunity. … Law is not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity by district court opinions, but by the decisions of circuit courts or the Supreme Court. Hawkins v.

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County

649 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Thus, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a