Case law

McPherson v. Auger

842 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 6, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (establishing the standard for assessing whether an officer is shielded from civil liability suits by qualified immunity). … Hence, Defendant Auger is protected by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs civil damages suit.

Courtney Richmond v. City of Brooklyn

490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

Thomas v. Murray

107 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, N.D. Texas · May 31, 2000

Murray contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established federal law. … clearly established in June 1996.

Smothers v. Gibson

778 F.2d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 1985

ANALYSIS Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective unreasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … The Cummins Unit argues that it should be accorded qualified immunity from liability for damages because the law of prison visitor strip searches was not clearly established in 1981.

Walter Warren v. State of Missouri Dick Moore Bill Armontrout Leonard Rutledge Richard A. Anderson Richard K. Bowers Keith Heidbreder Loren Stout

995 F.2d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 28, 1993

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Warren’s unsafe work place claim because the law governing prison working conditions was not clearly established in 1986 — since prison work is voluntary, it

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Jennings v. Patton

718 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 23, 2010

As Patton notes, qualified immunity protects public officials acting within the scope of their official duties from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *763 … Patton argues in his motion that he is entitled to qualified immunity since Jennings cannot establish any constitutional violation.

Weg v. MacChiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.... As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable." … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent "clearly established" caselaw to the contrary.

Mills v. Denny

245 Iowa 584 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 9, 1954

Of .this nature are proceedings in legislative assemblies, and generally in judicial tribunals.” *592 The court here clearly had reference to the state legislative assembly. Also see Mayo v. … However, most of the courts have rejected such extension of absolute immunity and permitted such bodies only a conditional or qualified privilege. Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 163, 22 Am. Dec. 418 ; Smith v.

Jones v. City of Cincinnati

521 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Police enjoy qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show that the police violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … We have already rejected defendants’ contention that the officers should receive qualified immunity.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.

Sepatis v. City and County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

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).

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

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.

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

881 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

I An official is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim.