Case law

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

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.

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

Stewart v. City of Prairie Village

904 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 17, 2012

immunity, Plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established. 23 The Court “cannot find qualified immunity wherever we have a new fact pattern.” 24 The Tenth Circuit has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from … A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right for each defendant in a § 1983 suit who claims qualified immunity; 47 § 1983 does not give a plaintiff a right of action against an individual

Davis v. Powell

901 F. Supp. 2d 1196 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 4, 2012

Qualified Immunity All of the Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims because they did not violate clearly established constitutional law, and they … Castro, 621 F.3d at 1199 (stating that courts can grant qualified immunity on the basis of the clearly established prong alone) (citing Rowlands, 606 F.3d at 651 ).

Potter v. Board of Regents

Nebraska Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2014

. § 20-148 (Reissue 2012) and that the managers are protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. … As to Bockstadter and Losee, the court found that the constitu- tional right allegedly violated had not been clearly established and that thus, the claim was barred by qualified immunity.

Meyer v. Woodward

617 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2008

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Woodward is not entitled to qualified immunity because of two clearly established rights. First, Plaintiff argues that he has a clearly established right to refuse medical treatment. … Defendants Woodward and Carter also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not of a “clearly established right.”

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.”

State v. Andrews

424 S.C. 304 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jul 18, 2018

On appeal, Andrews argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying him immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1 **308 (the Act) due to inconsistent witness testimony, (2) refusing to qualify Investigator … He stated shootings typically caused "memory fragmentation[, a]nd after a couple of sleep cycles[,] you're able to consolidate your memories" and remember the event more clearly.

Brown v. City of Atlanta

284 F. Supp. 3d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 9, 2018

Thus, the court now considers whether those rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, because Brown has pointed to clearly established law that prohibits the alleged conduct, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

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.

Nicol v. Auburn-Washburn USD 437

231 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … Ordinarily, for a law to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision" on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff

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.

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

Batyukova v. Doege

994 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2021

We AFFIRM the grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct either did not violate a federal right of the plaintiff or that right was not clearly established at the time of the relevant events.

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

Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King United States of America, David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger, Tina Marie Sellers, by and Through Her Guardian, Natural Mother, and Next Friend, Joann Sellers Albert F. Deuser Phyllis Menke v. Robert J. Baer John J. Frank James E. Mosbacher William H. Young Mayor Vincent Schoemehl Lawrence J. King, United States of America David Vecera, National Park Ranger Edward Bridges, National Park Ranger Dennis Burnett, Chief Ranger

28 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

established under current law. 6 Accordingly, Vecera, Bridges, Burnett, and King are entitled to qualified immunity. … We hold that the conduct of the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known, and the officers therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Jeffrey Moldowan v. Maureen Fournier

570 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Claims Generally speaking, the rationale underlying the qualified immunity doctrine is that, “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not … qualified immunity.