Case law

Comsys Incorporated v. Frank Pacetti

893 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2018

Clearly established law does not tell us what expectation of privacy a contractor has in such a situation, which means that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects public employees who do not violate clearly established law.

Casines v. Murchek

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines’s right to a pre-termi-nation hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

Fleming v. Livingston County, Ill.

674 F.3d 874 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The question of whether Turner actually had probable cause to arrest Fleming is separate from the question relating to qualified immunity.3 “Qualified immunity 3 Fleming asserts that “the court’s … immunity defense.5 As we have stated before, “[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest, but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.

Carroll v. Henry County, Ga.

336 B.R. 578 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 23, 2006

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Walker ex rel. T.W. v. City of New York

63 F. Supp. 3d 301 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2014

Defendants Robinson and White Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity 1) Caseworker Qualified Immunity “Immunity ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … Individual government actors performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity if: “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Government officials such as police officers are not absolutely immune from suit, but rather only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The determination of qualified immunity necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right- was so “clearly established” as to alert

Vaughn v. Ricketts

663 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 29, 1987

In Ward , the court rejected the defendant’s qualified immunity defense and held that a 1981 visual body cavity search of a misdemeanor arrestee conducted in the absence of a reasonable grounds was a violation of clearly … The burden of overcoming an official’s qualified immunity by demonstrating the existence of a clearly established right rests with the plaintiff. Davis v.

R. H. v. ED WAGNER

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 11, 2022

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,4 that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. … ’ and ‘qualified immunity’ are used interchangeably in Georgia case law to refer to the type of immunity that sometimes shields government employees from individual liability[.]”

Wesley Taylor v. Richard K. Bowers, Carl Doerhoff, Kent Grewe, Maryland Butts, Helen Farr, Loren Stout

966 F.2d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

The case law that governs whether the defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense is well established. See, e.g., Givens, 900 F.2d at 1231 . … When the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Lebron v. Rumsfeld

764 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 17, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that even if Padilla could assert a viable cause of action, they would still be protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Winder v. Gallardo

118 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2024

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 would have known … We decline Appellants’ invitation to upend qualified immunity. Before delving into their case’s substance, Appellants first request that we upend qualified immunity outright.

Green v. Security Assurance Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity “means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful

Williams v. Pollard

44 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, plaintiffs must effectively pass two hurdles: First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Pollard is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. III.

Eagleston v. County of Suffolk

790 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 22, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if the conduct complained of “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Whether an official is protected by qualified immunity is determined by the objective reasonableness of the action, “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Dennis Wolfel v. Nick Sanborn

666 F.2d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1982

As our decisions make clear, whether such immunity has been established depends on facts peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the defendant. . .. … The burden would then be upon the plaintiff to show either that a subjective, bad faith intent to harm him motivated the official or that the official knew or should have known that his action infringed a clearly established

Lutfi Saalim v. Walmart, Inc.

97 F.4th 995 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2024

Qualified Immunity Bretzloff claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Saalim’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim against him. … entitling them to qualified immunity.

Hoffman v. Lehman

926 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1996

violation of clearly established law. … Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs have stated a substantive due process claim based upon clearly established law, the evidence so far developed entitles them to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity

Penate v. Sullivan

73 F.4th 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

In the alternative, the district court found that Detective Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established that officers were required to either knock and announce in this situation … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages "unless their conduct violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Lawless v.

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.