Case law

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.

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.

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Davis v. Chalstrom

595 F. App'x 627 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2014

Chal-strom has taken an interlocutory appeal, contending that he deserves qualified immunity. … Then the purely legal question for the court would be simply whether Chastrom walked on Davis’s curtilage in a way that violated clearly established law.

Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen

761 F.3d 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 31, 2014

On appeal the estate argues that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because under clearly established law she committed sufficient affirmative acts to be liable for creating or increasing the danger to Brook … The estate has failed to show that Defendant’s behavior was a clearly established violation of Brook’s constitutional rights at the time it occurred. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Jones v. PRAMSTALLER

678 F. Supp. 2d 609 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 22, 2009

“Ordinarily, a Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals] decision on point is necessary” to clearly establish the right in the relevant context and defeat qualified immunity. See Reynolds v. … Cabinet for Workforce Dev., 289 F.3d 958 , 964 (6th Cir.2002). 5 *629 This means that Jones cannot defeat the qualified-immunity defense with preAugust 28, 2007 precedent “clearly establishing” his general right to be free

Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

627 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2010

We have accepted interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine where the issue is a sovereign’s absolute immunity from suit and where qualified immunity is at issue. See, e.g., Paine v. … Con- sistent with our prior decisions, we hold that the government contractor defense does not confer absolute or qualified immunity.

Muslim v. Frame

897 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 1995

Whether the Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants’ final argument is that summary judgment should be granted because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers from damages claims when their alleged conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hearn v. Internal Revenue Agents

623 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 15, 1985

In response to Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity, and in conformity with Elliott v. … Qualified immunity attaches unless the Defendants’ “conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” Harlow v.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.” … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

Austin v. Johnson

328 F.3d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 28, 2003

We have jurisdiction, because the court determined plaintiff's allegations made out the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the denial of qualified immunity did not rest on the sufficiency of evidence … This ignores the fact that the plaintiff has the burden to rebut a qualified immunity defense "by establishing that the official's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Pierce v.

Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital

474 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Nevertheless, the officers contend the district court erred in denying their post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because no clearly established law precluded the test. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia

93 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

For acts to which qualified immunity may apply, 2 it held that the plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly the Court held that qualified immunity could be penetrated only on a showing of objective unreasonableness—the now familiar requirement of “clearly established” rights. Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Leroy J. Matherne, Cross-Appellant v. Charles C. Wilson, Cross-Appellees

851 F.2d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 1988

Fitzgerald 3 standard of “qualified” immunity, a public official *756 cannot be saddled with damages for actions that do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have known.” 4 Wilson argues that in firing Matherne he violated no “clearly established law” and thus was entitled to Harlow immunity.

Young v. McKune

280 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 30, 2003

Qualified immunity provides government officials immunity from suit as well as from liability for their discretionary acts. Mitchell v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Noel Dean v. Darshan Phatak

911 F.3d 286 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2018

matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … Dean counters that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Phatak created a false, misleading, and inaccurate autopsy report and violated Dean’s clearly-established constitutional