Case law

Doe v. City of Chicago

883 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity Dr. Bransfield moves to dismiss the Section 504 claim against him on grounds of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Citizens for Uniform Taxation v. Northport Public School District

239 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Section 1211 treats nonresidents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property exactly the same as Michigan residents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property, neither are eligible for the

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

Gardner v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS, FOR KANSAS CITY

641 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

Ritchie is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gardner, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … The court further concluded that at the time of the shooting, the law was clearly established on this point, and that Ritchie was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established.”

White v. Gerardot

509 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2007

It is well established, of course, that a denial of qualified immunity is only appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 . … Detective Gerardot claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate Ford’s constitutional rights and, in any event, those rights were not clearly established at the time of

Eastwood v. Department Of Corrections Of The State Of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff's clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.”

Andrews v. Ring

266 Va. 311 · Supreme Court of Virginia · Sep 12, 2003

The undisputed facts subject to proper consideration by the trial court upon motions for summary judgment on this issue clearly establish that Andrews and Cox seek damages for injury to personal reputation and employment … Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Ring maintains that if he is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, he is, nonetheless, entitled to the same qualified immunity extended to police officers for actions taken

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUN. v. Romer

921 P.2d 84 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is "clearly established law" is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use "its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents."

Adewale v. Whalen

21 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 7, 1998

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights of “which a reasonable person would have … cause is the clearly established standard for making an arrest.

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

839 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1993

raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to this use of the taser as well because its use did not violate clearly established law.

Statchen v. Palmer, et al.

2009 DNH 137 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 15, 2009

Even if the force used fell into the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force, Scott and Palmer would be entitled to qualified immunity. The cell incident is less clearly defined. … The statute also echoes the standard for qualified immunity.

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Brown v. City of Atlanta

284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi

272 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Virgili challenges the district court’s ruling that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because her Fourth Amendment right against a strip-search was not “clearly established” at the time of search. We AFFIRM. … The district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Virg-ili’s right against the search .was not “clearly established” at

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.