Case law

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

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.

McKinney v. Huntsville Sch. Dist.

345 F. Supp. 3d 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2018

Counts IV and VI: Qualified Immunity Certain government officials who are performing "discretionary functions" are immune from civil action as long as their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Courts analyze two elements to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official violated plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established. Saucier v.

Nichols v. City of Jackson

848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.

Lopez Lopez v. Aran

699 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 14, 1988

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity. … For reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs a verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. *366 The doctrine of qualified immunity applies to government officials performing

Axson-Flynn v. Johnson

356 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 3, 2004

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from [section] 1983 liability if their actions did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Because the law is clearly established and there exists a material factual issue as to the objective reasonableness of Defendants’ actions, the qualified immunity defense to the free speech claim must fail on summary judgment

Christophel v. Kukulinsky

61 F.3d 479 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 1995

The individual defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established constitutional right to procedural due process. … When a defendant asserts qualified immunity on summary judgment, the court may determine the currently applicable law and whether that law was clearly established at the time of the actions in question.

Bender v. General Services Administration

539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.

Anilao v. Spota

774 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Legal Standard If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, ie., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or … Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003); see also Fielding, 257 Fed.Appx. at 401 (“The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it

Charles F. Finsel v. Thomas Cruppenink, in His Individual and Official Capacities as Vermilion County Deputy Sheriff

326 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2003

Cruppenink filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to his entry into the motel room. … The deputy’s motion for qualified immunity was also denied. That decision is the *906 subject of this appeal.

Skehan v. Village Of Mamaroneck

465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct; or (2) the defendant's … The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. 38 Id. at 51 , 115

Bliss v. Franco

446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006

right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service

471 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The defendants’ motion is based on judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and a qualified good faith immunity. As the Supreme Court held in Pierson v. … in support thereof (or the lack of that authority), whether a claim has been stated by *767 a specific count, and whether a specific right was or was not clearly established.

Brown v. Montana

442 F. Supp. 2d 982 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Wills is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the law was clearly established as to that social worker’s action, it likewise was clearly established here.

Matwyuk v. Johnson

22 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 23, 2014

Defendant Fildey is not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.820 a. Constitutional Violation.822 i. Government versus Private Speech .822 ii. Facial Challenge.824 iii. As Applied Challenge.826 b. Clearly Established.826 B. … clearly established.”

Cullinan v. Abramson

128 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

The grounds on which the defendants relied included both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights."

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.

Zapach v. Dismuke

134 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”