Case law

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.

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department

232 Cal. App. 4th 995 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2014

” (Hafer, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 29)) or “qualified immunity.” … Haugen (2004) 543 U.S. 194, 198–201 [160 L.Ed.2d 583, 125 S.Ct. 596] [officer who shot fleeing felon entitled to qualified immunity]; Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 203–209 [arresting officer entitled to qualified immunity

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality v. Al-Madhoun

374 Ark. 28 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 19, 2008

The circuit court further ruled that qualified immunity did not apply to the individual defendants because there was an exception to qualified immunity for malicious acts and intentional torts under Ark. … In response, Appellees assert that the employees are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino

240 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

“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 a reasonable person … On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

Albert Flenner and William Glover v. Michael F. Sheahan

107 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1997

The district court granted his motion, holding that Sheriff Sheahan was entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissal of corree 1 tional officers was not clearly established in 1993, the time … “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Holley v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, NY

625 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

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

Reed v. Garden City Union Free School District

987 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 16, 2013

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

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

Smith v. Norton Hospitals, Inc.

488 S.W.3d 23 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 4, 2016

immunity. … established under the law.

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.

Falkiewicz v. City of Westland

25 F. Supp. 2d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 26, 1998

Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights. 4 Standard of Review Qualified Immunity Defendants rely upon the doctrine of qualified immunity to … Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials pferforming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Robert O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Walter H. Clark, Robert E. Paaswell, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

985 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1993

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.