Case law

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Hoyer v. DiCocco

457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

Anglin v. City of Aspen

552 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 29, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability when they are performing discretionary functions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Doran by and Through Doran v. Condon

5 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 26, 1998

Qualified immunity is a question of law. … Thus, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. B. Count II S.

Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell

981 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 15, 1992

Qualified Immunity Claim “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; if the plaintiff proves that the right allegedly violated was clearly established, the burden shifts to the defendant official to prove that his or her conduct was reasonable

Womack v. Bradshaw

49 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 2014

An officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to inquire whether the “right that was violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

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.

Dwayne Andrews v. Keith Schafer

888 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2018

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … ; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Estate of David E. Morgan, Jr. v. John Cook

686 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 10, 2012

-3-  “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … Evaluating a claim of qualified immunity requires a “two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Paul v. City of Rochester

452 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2005) (defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it had not been clearly established that tackling plaintiff under the circumstances constituted excessive force); Soares … The City did not raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. 8 .

James F. Robinson v. Solano County Brian Cauwells, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer Gary Faulkner, Solano County Sheriff's Deputy Officer

218 F.3d 1030 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

Qualified immunity “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] 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 … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (“ ‘clearly established’ ” for purposes of qualified immunity does not mean that “ ‘an official action is pro *1036 tected by qualified immunity unless the

Carr v. Tatangelo

338 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and, if so, whether they had “fair warning” under clearly established law that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford

453 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 18, 2006

In opposing *432 these counts, the individual defendants urge that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established rights of the defendant or, in the alternative, the actions of … As this court agrees that the substantive due process rights claimed by the plaintiff are not clearly established, it grants the individual defendants qualified immunity on these claims.

Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville

476 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 2007

Next, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs rights under the First and Four Amendments are “clearly established” in this case for purposes of qualified immunity. … Rather than directing his argument to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the “clearly established” prong, Officer Popp focuses all of his arguments on the first prong. None of these arguments is novel.

Flores Camilo v. Alvarez Ramirez

283 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendant, his conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Outlaw v. City of Hartford

884 F.3d 351 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516 (1994). 7 Allen contends that in December 2004, the law governing his conduct 8 was not sufficiently clearly established because "it was not clearly established that an 9 … Creighton, 483 U.S. at 640-41. 15 Where the right at issue in the circumstances confronting police officers was clearly 16 established but was violated, the officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if 17

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

Swartwood v. County of San Diego

84 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that Bryson and Curiel are entitled to qualified immunity because the governing law was not clearly established when R.S. and D.S. were removed. (De/s.’ MSJ, p. 12.)

Justin Parsons v. City of Pontiac

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 22, 2008

But under § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information … Detectives Martin and McKinney, however, are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions “were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.” See id.

Milfort v. Prevete

922 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 13, 2013

A qualified immunity defense is established if “(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 such law … Because there is “no question that [these rights] were clearly established at the time of the incident,” a point that Defendants concede, Defendants’ actions are protected by qualified immunity only if it was objectively