Case law

Fitzpatrick v. City of Dearborn Heights

105 F. App'x 733 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 15, 2004

STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 , 1157 (6th Cir. 1996). DISCUSSION A qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step process. … Simakas are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Phillip Ransom v. Anthony Grisafe

790 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2015

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 … To overcome the defense of qualified immuni *811 ty, Ransom must have shown that the officers’ actions violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Henry v. Ryan

775 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

Government officials enjoy immunity from civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Closely analogous cases, those decided before the defendants acted, ... are required to find that a constitutional right is clearly established.” Powers v.

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.

Roy George, Shirley George and Sherrod Fitts v. City of St. Louis, Robert Scheetz, Albert Upchurch and Brian Gilmore

26 F.3d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

In other words, to decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, “a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … to qualified immunity and the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera Monroig

30 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established” in this Circuit. … In addition, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from political discrimination and actual or constructive patronage dismissals was clearly established in the First Circuit

Peterson v. Heymes

277 F. Supp. 3d 913 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 29, 2017

Qualified Immunity MSP Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating both that the challenged conduct violates a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was so clearly established at

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel Int'l.

36 F.4th 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 7, 2022

favor in order to answer the legal question of whether the plaintiff has asserted a clearly established constitutional violation. … Consider qualified immunity, which shields government officials from suits for damages unless the official violates a clearly established federal constitutional or statutory right.

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri

760 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

Louis County, Missouri. 1 Officers Lively and Percich moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and St. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known

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.”

Andrews v. Ring

266 Va. 311 · Supreme Court of Virginia · Sep 12, 2003

The undisputed facts subject to proper consideration by the trial court upon motions for summary judgment on this issue clearly establish that Andrews and Cox seek damages for injury to personal reputation and employment … Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Ring maintains that if he is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, he is, nonetheless, entitled to the same qualified immunity extended to police officers for actions taken

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 &#167 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). 12 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

Butts v. City of Bowling Green

374 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jun 23, 2005

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth and ( … violation was clearly established and whether, in light of the clearly established law, Detective Raley’s actions were unreasonable.

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

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.

Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

627 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 30, 2010

We have accepted interlocutory appeals under the collateral order doctrine where the issue is a sovereign’s absolute immunity from suit and where qualified immunity is at issue. See, e.g., Paine v. … Con- sistent with our prior decisions, we hold that the government contractor defense does not confer absolute or qualified immunity.

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.”

Hartsoe v. Tucker

371 Mont. 539 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2013

¶8 Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 18 holds that immunity from suit may be established by a two-third vote of the Legislature. … ¶11 Hartsoe also raises issues of qualified immunity for state employees, and asserts a malicious prosecution claim for the first time on appeal.

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.

Hawley v. Nelson

968 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 4, 1997

Qualified immunity is available (1) if the law as it relates to the relevant facts was not clearly established or (2) if a reasonable official could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful in light of the clearly established … clearly established and defendants are entitled to at least qualified immunity from suit.