Case law

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.

Marcavage v. National Park Service

666 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

The District Court then found that Saperstein and Crane were entitled to qualified immunity from both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claims because Marcavage’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established … As noted above, to strip Saperstein and Crane of qualified immunity requires the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Coker on Behalf of Coker v. Henry

813 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The question of qualified immunity generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … In asserting qualified immunity, defendants contend the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time Craig Coker was abused.

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.

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

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.

Gilbert v. Feld

788 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity. Green v. … Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth facts establishing qualified immunity. A qualified immunity defense can, therefore, not be used to defeat the claim on this 12(b)(6) motion.

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

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

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.”

Omar T. Alston v. Mark Swarbrick

954 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 26, 2020

Police officers acting in their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless a plaintiff can establish that (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right violated was … clearly established.

Heitschmidt v. The City of Houston

161 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

With regard to his unlawful detention claim, Heitschmidt asserts his clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person, a right which he maintains includes the clearly established right to be … defense of qualified immunity.’”

Palisano v. City of Clearwater

219 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials are shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … defeating qualified immunity).

Arbaugh v. BOARD OF EDUC., COUNTY OF PENDLETON

329 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 6, 2004

Qualified Immunity Thompson asserts the defense of qualified immunity in his reply. … This immunity is available when the conduct of a government employee does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Hines v. French

157 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2004

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … Rather, the question is whether, confronted with the facts of this case, reasonable police officers should have known that clearly established constitutional law prohibited the methods used in the search.

Christopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Klein v. Madison

374 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2019

Qualified Immunity: Excessive Force & Unlawful Search The defendants have asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the plaintiff's section 1983 claims for excessive force and unlawful search. … The Officers have qualified immunity if their conduct "does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known." Pearson v.

Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Bedsole v. Clark

33 So. 3d 9 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Sep 18, 2009

‘“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … When a government official seeks summary judgment based on qualified immunity, courts apply a two-step test to determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate.