Case law

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.

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

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

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

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein

598 F. App'x 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

The district court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. … While M.C. may well have a remedy under state law, 3 we hold that qualified immunity *150 bars his federal constitutional claims because the defendants did not violate M.C.’s clearly established rights.

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”).   

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

Johnson v. Johnson

385 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

immunity on the ground that Johnson had not alleged violations of rights that were clearly established. … Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient.

Greer v. Baker.

137 Haw. 249 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2016

presiding over a lawsuit”), with id. at 868 (Qualified immunity is “[i]mmunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established … “The nature of qualified immunity doctrine bears on the difficulties of the problem, because [qualified] immunity frequently depends on the specific facts of a particular case.” 15A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

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

Penlyn Development Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor

51 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity The defendant also moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Chavez-Rodriguez v. City of Santa Fe

616 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2009

It is not clear from the briefing whether the Defendants are moving on an absence-of-evidence issue in. their qualified-immunity motion apart from whether the legal principles about causation are clearly established. … The question under the clearly established law step of qualified immunity is whether the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.