Case law

Kevin Lamar Adams Bobbie Adams v. City of Auburn Hills, a Municipal Corporation, John Backstrom

336 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court explained in Harlow v. … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: “(1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff could establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether the right was a ‘clearly established

John Paff v. George Kaltenbach

204 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2000

Fields, 178 F.3d 170, 174 (3d Cir. 1999). 17 A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the … a right to leaflet peacefully where they were. 59 When an officer violates clearly established law and the facts reasonably known by the officer indisputably show that the officer's conduct was illegal, qualified immunity

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

John Flowers v. City of Diboll Texas, Steve Baker and Kent Havard

Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · May 22, 2013

Governmental employees are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages ―insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. See Hunter v.

Williams v. Goldsmith

4 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 29, 1998

The Clearly Established Law. In Jenkins v. … immunity, which turns on whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

299 Ga. 301 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2016

(d) Special Privileges and Immunities: Pursuant to Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, § I, Par. … Jacobi was not qualified under the statute. This leaves only the two affidavits filed by Dr.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

957 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Debbie Floyd v. Larry Laws, and City of Sherwood, a Municipal Corporation

929 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Because these rights are clearly established, Floyd contends, defendant Laws was not entitled to a jury instruction on qualified immunity. … If Floyd’s line of reasoning were correct, then any plaintiff could preclude her opponent’s qualified immunity defense simply by alleging violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff, Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff

77 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Carver and Rogers then returned Erickson to the jail. 5 On appeal, Johnle, Birdsall, and Carver assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Erickson's clearly established constitutional rights … immunity.

Cynthia Archer v. John Chisholm

870 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

It  granted  the  Investigators’  motion  for  judgment  on  the  pleadings on qualified immunity grounds and noted that the  Prosecutors also were entitled to qualified immunity.  …  right that was clearly established at the time of  the challenged conduct.” 

kenney v. davidson

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Thus they are not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss.

Tveraas v. Coffey

818 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 5, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from civil suits to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … To establish entitlement to such protection, a defendant must show that he has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Jackson v. City of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Angela McCullough v. Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

907 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

The Mayor and the Chiefs Enjoy Qualified and State-Agent Immunity from the Jailees’ Complaint. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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

Dean v. Thomas

933 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 1, 1996

However, this “qualified immunity” is defeated if the defendant official took the complained-of action “with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory … Officials are not ordinarily entitled to the protection of qualified immunity if clearly established constitutional rights have been violated.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Gennusa v. Shoar

879 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 2012

Defendants further assert that, even if the recording violated plaintiffs’ rights, qualified immunity applies because those rights were not clearly established. … Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Jorge E. Cancel Lugo v. Carlos Alvarado, Etc.

819 F.2d 5 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 26, 1987

The district court ruled that where the discovery was not directed solely at damage issues related to the qualified immunity defense (i.e., “matters of personal motivations, related to the subjective components of the qualified … The qualified immunity inquiry involves not only the question of "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v.

Doe v. City of Chicago

883 F. Supp. 1126 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 16, 1994

Qualified Immunity Dr. Bransfield moves to dismiss the Section 504 claim against him on grounds of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights