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.

Amy Sanders v. Lamar Jones

845 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2017

Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because Sanders cannot establish the violation of a constitutional right. … immunity grounds); see generally Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (holding that a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional

DeHart v. Lehman

9 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1998

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity; and D) Plaintiff was not denied equal protection of the law. 3 Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right

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

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense 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

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.

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.

State v. Gear

236 Ariz. 289 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 20, 2014

“a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history.” … ¶17 In construing statutes, we apply a word’s “usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.”