Case law

Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

707 N.W.2d 669 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

Rather, the specific conduct challenged was the ministerial decision of whether to instruct the student to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged as clearly dictated by an established protocol. Id. at 656-57 . … Anderson, the Eighth Circuit stated that, in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were disputed.

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

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

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

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

Flowers v. Bennett

135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 11, 2000

Even without Hill, there is good reason to believe that “clearly established” authority exists to deny qualified immunity in this case. … In a qualified immunity analysis, two questions arise: (1) Does the plaintiff allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) Was the law that the public official is alleged to have violated 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

Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff, Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff

77 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Carver and Rogers then returned Erickson to the jail. 5 On appeal, Johnle, Birdsall, and Carver assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Erickson's clearly established constitutional rights … immunity.

Rivas v. City of Passaic

365 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2004

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … We note that Garcia and Rodriguez do not argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as of November 1998.

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

798 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To qualify as clearly established, “‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brown v.

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

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.)