Case law

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

Jenny Wernsing, Charles Bingaman and Troy Cannon v. Odell Thompson, Jr.

423 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

The district court also rejected Thompson’s claim of qualified immunity, holding that it was clearly established that Thompson’s alleged actions restricting or retaliating against plaintiffs’ speech on matters of public concern … If the clearly established question could be resolved merely by observing that unjustified prior restraints on speech are prohibited, then no defendant could ever prevail on the clearly established prong of the qualified

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.

James Gladden, Jr. v. Kenneth Richbourg

759 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2014

Thus, Gladden can prevail against the officers only if they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … If, based on those facts, the officer reasonably failed to comprehend that he was violating a person’s clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id.

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.

Henrise v. Horvath

174 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2001

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … To preclude qualified immunity, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to establish that “the [specific] action in question has previously been held unlawful.” Anderson v.

Williams v. Condon

347 S.C. 227 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Oct 1, 2001

But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest. … Furthermore, the O’Laughlin Court clearly stated that the provisions of the Tort Claims Act do not supplant common law immunity doctrines. Prosecutorial immunity is a common law immunity doctrine.

Mary Roe v. Texas Department Of Protective And Regulatory Services

299 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 2002

established" in the context of qualified immunity. … established" for purposes of qualified immunity. 19 It is difficult to argue that a matter of law is clearly established for state actors in this circuit where this court has not opined on the issue in question and the other

Ledvina v. Cerasani

213 Ariz. 569 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 31, 2006

reports in the public interest, a situation clearly not present here. … A qualified privilege is inadequate under the circumstances....

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

of clearly established law.” … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

Jones v. Perry County Fiscal Court

185 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Judge Alexander “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 … [Record No. 40-1, p. 13] Further, he contends that Jones’ right to associate with his uncle is not clearly established.

Whalen v. Commonwealth

21 Mass. L. Rptr. 193 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 26, 2006

not entitled to qualified immunity. … However, in addition to proving that the state or federal right was “clearly established” (because qualified immunity applies under the MCRA), liability under the MCRA requires the additional step of showing that the violation

Salvador Reza v. Russell Pearce

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2015

PEARCE 3 Senator Pearce violated plaintiff’s clearly established First Amendment rights and that the district court erred by granting him qualified immunity on summary judgment. … To overcome Senator Pearce’s qualified immunity defense, Reza must establish both that Senator Pearce violated his First Amendment rights, and that this violation was of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional

Walker v. Prieto

414 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 3, 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 … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Zayas

671 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

III.Qualified Immunity In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a defense of qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to state executive officers performing discretionary functions, “insofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Holloway v. Brechtse

279 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is an objective one that asks whether a reasonable public official would know that his specific conduct violated clearly established rights. Grant v.

LoSacco v. City of Middletown

822 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 22, 1993

First, the motion seeks summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. … In this case, the defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity.

Burns v. Davis

196 Ariz. 155 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 10, 1999

Instead, a qualified immunity may be most appropriate. For example, in Ellish v. … We find this necessary because Arizona case law is not clearly settled on this subject.

Ottman v. City Of Independence

341 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 1, 2003

We review de novo a denial of qualified immunity. Holloway v. … Reeves, 277 F.3d 1035 , 1037 (8th Cir.2002). 13 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “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 known … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.