Case law

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.

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.

Kenneth E. Hardy v. Jefferson Community College and Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Mary Pamela Besser and Richard Green

260 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

Green and Besser then filed a motion to alter or amend the district court’s ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity, asserting that “the right to free speech in the classroom setting is not clearly established … Standard of review The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Harvey v. Montgomery County

881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.

Timothy Beers v. Jon Fouts et al.

2018 DNH 144 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 10, 2018

In granting defendant Forcier’s motion to dismiss and the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, this court determined that the law was not clearly established in December … Qualified Immunity Further, this court previously concluded that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity from plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the group strip search.

Casines v. Murchek

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines’s right to a pre-termi-nation hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

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.

Bender v. General Services Administration

539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.

Anilao v. Spota

774 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2011

Legal Standard If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, ie., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or … Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 385 (2d Cir.2003); see also Fielding, 257 Fed.Appx. at 401 (“The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it

Charles F. Finsel v. Thomas Cruppenink, in His Individual and Official Capacities as Vermilion County Deputy Sheriff

326 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2003

Cruppenink filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to his entry into the motel room. … The deputy’s motion for qualified immunity was also denied. That decision is the *906 subject of this appeal.

Winder v. Gallardo

118 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 2024

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 known … We decline Appellants’ invitation to upend qualified immunity. Before delving into their case’s substance, Appellants first request that we upend qualified immunity outright.

Skehan v. Village Of Mamaroneck

465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct; or (2) the defendant's … The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. 38 Id. at 51 , 115

Bliss v. Franco

446 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 25, 2006

right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Trask satisfy their burdens under the first two prongs of qualified immunity analysis. Their allegations under the Fourth Amendment, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

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.”

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.

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.

Cullinan v. Abramson

128 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

The grounds on which the defendants relied included both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights."

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.