Case law

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Williams v. Goldsmith

4 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 29, 1998

The Clearly Established Law. In Jenkins v. … immunity, which turns on whether the officer violated clearly established law.

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

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.”

Mason Ex Rel. Mason v. Schenectady City School District

879 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 21, 1993

There is, in short, no controversy about whether punitive damages are available against individual defendants sued in their individual capacities. 5 (5) QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants claim entitlement to qualified … The individual defendants seek qualified immunity, however.

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.

Eaton v. Estabrook

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 26, 2023

By requiring the law to be clearly established to a particularized degree, qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Relevant to the second question, “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘

Aboufariss v. City of De Kalb

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jul 7, 1999

To determine whether qualified immunity applies to a defendant in section 1983 actions, courts examine whether the defendant’s conduct violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and whether the rights were clearly established … Once the defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. Forman , 104 F.3d at 957-58 .

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.”

Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.

996 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 26, 1998

Government officials performing administrative or executive functions have qualified immunity from suit under civil rights statutes if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendants violated a law that was clearly established.” Norton v.

Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village

739 F.3d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 31, 2013

“‘The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials . . . from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.’” Gann v. … Clearly established right We also hold that the individual defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the second requirement for § 1983 qualified immunity because Sgt.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

440 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2014

Although the Health Care Providers would not qualify for immunity under subsection (a), the General Assembly clearly included them when drafting subsections (b) and (c). … That the General Assembly referred to all of Part III, including these restrictions on admittance, when establishing the prerequisites to qualifying for immunity, demonstrates its intent that the immunity extend beyond

Breeden v. University of Mississippi Medical Center

241 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 5, 2001

Under “qualified immunity,” government officials are not subject to liability for the performance of their discretionary actions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The test for qualified immunity is understandably twofold. First, the court must determine whether the conduct alleged would have deprived a § 1983 plaintiff of a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right.