Case law

Fares v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

29 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 1998

Qualified Immunity Individual Defendants argue that, at the very least, they are all shielded from Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard 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 … A court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

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.

A.M. ex rel. Law v. Grant

889 F. Supp. 1495 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 21, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit recently explained that [flor the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context

Scocca v. Smith

912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Dingle v. District of Columbia

571 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims of false arrest. 5 Construing the facts in favor of plaintiffs deposition testimony, the Court finds the officers … Applying the two-part analysis to this action, it appears from this record that Officer Moore violated a clearly established right.

Johnson v. Johnson

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

Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient. … If Johnson has indeed failed to allege a violation, then of course there can be no violation of clearly established law that would overcome qualified immunity. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 .

Ellis v. City of Indianapolis

800 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1992

clearly established. … Qualified Immunity Defense Applies to Wynalda’s Conduct The question whether qualified immunity attaches to an officer’s conduct is always one for the judge to decide. Simkunas v.

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Trammell v. Wright

489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Id. 58 Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton's right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Shaboon v. Duncan

252 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Further, these violations might be found to be so “clearly established” as to overcome Duncan’s qualified immunity defense.

Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen

Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his … they are clearly erroneous.31 A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”32 III.

Clemmons v. Armontrout

477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity 10 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. … To determine whether a right is "clearly established," we ask "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.

Harvey A. Thompson v. City of Starkville, Mississippi, David Lindley, Larry Sisk, and Jimmy Raines, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

901 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 1990

Forsyth, it has been established that an appeal may be taken of a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly … Perez, 751 F.2d 1472 , 1477 n. 13 (5th Cir.1985) (“Under the qualified immunity standard, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory