Case law

Flowers v. Bennett

123 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established law. … Public officials, including correctional officers, are protected from actions brought against them in their individual capacities by qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hagemeier v. Block

806 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 1986

Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages under the doctrine of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Conroy v. Caron

275 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 8, 2017

That is because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Moreover, their entry into the garages under these . assumed circumstances violated clearly established law, such that they are- not entitled at this time to the protection of qualified immunity. 5 *344 2.

John Coffin v. Stacy Brandau

642 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 2011

of qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

Pfeil v. Lampert

11 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

Nelson Ex Rel. the Estate of Nelson v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 30, 1997

Qualified Immunity The Sheriff argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity precludes his individual liability for civil damages. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil. damages as long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Heller v. Fulare

371 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2005

Therefore, on this issue, qualified immunity is denied. … As for the applicability of qualified immunity to the remaining claims in Count II and the remaining Counts of the Complaint, the Court denies qualified immunity without prejudice to raise this immunity within a second motion

Haldeman v. Total Petroleum, Inc.

376 N.W.2d 98 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 16, 1985

If the immunity provided by it were intended to be only a qualified one, we believe the legislature would have added words to so indicate. … It was error on the part of the trial court to submit the issue as a qualified privilege. It should have dismissed Haldeman’s libel claim against Total based upon statutory immunity. III. The Qualified Privilege.

Brown v. ONTARIO COUNTY

787 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Nevertheless, I find that even if probable cause was lacking or questionable, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Rhoades v. Clinkscale

Superior Court of Delaware · Jul 20, 2016

on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established, question of whether the purported right exists at without resolving the plied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the a>l?> all. … Thus, State Defendants argue that qualified immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against them, because Plaintiff has failed to identify a right to a particular procedure or protocol that has been clearly established by

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.

Ohio Ex Rel. Manuel v. Ohio Department of Health

810 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions are objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Defendants have qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the [Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that

Ganek v. Leibowitz

874 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2017

 immunity on the ground that the right was not  then clearly established.   …  immunity and summary judgment  should  be  granted  to  the  defendant  on  the  basis  of  qualified  immunity”).   

Craighead v. Lee

399 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

Paul moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the Section 1983 claims and based on official immunity as to the state-law claims. … Wilson held that summary judgment on qualified immunity was inappropriate because "[t]he current record does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of the officers' actions or beliefs." Wilson, 293 F.3d at 454.

Nancy Roell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs

870 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

“In order for a right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … We, on the other hand, have utilized the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis to conclude that the deputies are entitled to summary judgment because no caselaw clearly established that the degree of force used

Key v. Grayson

998 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 19, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … not clearly established, and thus recommended that this court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for money damages on the basis of qualified immunity.

Angle v. Dow

822 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 1, 1993

anal *1538 ysis public officials will be entitled to qualified immunity in two situations: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established; and 2) when the law is clearly established and the Court … Therefore, the Court will examine the clearly established law, the second step of qualified immunity analysis. Defendants rely entirely on Dartland v.

Bradford v. Wiggins

516 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 2008

If so, we must then determine *1196 whether the right was clearly established. Id. … right was clearly established.

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir.1989). 6 Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless "the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established … established" for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert's death.

Bates v. ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

31 So. 3d 210 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 24, 2010

Therefore, the plaintiff argues the Sheriffs absolute immunity is limited to qualified immunity based upon whether there was a disclosure of knowingly false information. … Section 943.139(4) fails to clearly abrogate, limit, or qualify the absolute immunity provided the Sheriff under common law. For these reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J., concur. 1 .