Case law

Colman v. Vasquez

142 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Colman’s Complaint does not allege a violation of clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Costanich v. Department of Social & Health Services

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previously been clearly established in the civil context. 13 A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make a reasonable

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.

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.

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.”

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco

495 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 17, 2007

clearly established. … Also, because no reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that the search as described by Edgerly was constitutional, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search.

Calnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department

200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001

We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.

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.

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.

Greenwood v. State of New York

939 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1996

Qualified Immunity Individual defendants rely on the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion for summary judgment. … Thus, defendants claiming qualified immunity must show either: (1) that the right “was [not] clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,” or (2) that “reasonable persons in their position would not have understood

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

William E. "Buster" Fisher v. Tom E. Harden, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio

398 F.3d 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2005

First, he claims that because he pleaded facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants. … the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Munafo v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

285 F.3d 201 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 26, 2002

The employee’s right to be free from such retaliation has been clearly established since at least 1968. … Accordingly, this Court, in order to review the individual defendants’ contention that the district court’s ruling on this branch of their qualified immunity motions mistakenly identified clearly established law, must “undertake

Wilkinson v. Torres

610 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

However, an officer using deadly force is entitled to qualified immunity, unless the law was clearly established that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. See Brosseau v. … The qualified immunity inquiry consists of two parts: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly

Matwyuk v. Johnson

22 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 23, 2014

Defendant Fildey is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.820 a. Constitutional Violation.822 i. Government versus Private Speech .822 ii. Facial Challenge.824 iii. As Applied Challenge.826 b. Clearly Established.826 B. … clearly established.”

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.

Keller v. McElveen

744 So. 2d 643 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1999

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court discussed the concept of prosecutorial immunity in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit and concluded that the well-established … Qualified immunity ‘“represents the norm’ ” for executive officers ... so when a prosecutor “functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” he is entitled only to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

Robert Bethel v. Charlotte Jenkins

988 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2021

immunity and failing to find that Defendants violated Bethel’s clearly established rights. … Finally, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because they did not violate Bethel’s clearly established rights under the First