Case law

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez

585 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 29, 2009

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 rights of which a reasonable person … "In administering the Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the 'clearly established' prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity test

Jessica Kampschroer v. Ramsey County

840 F.3d 961 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

The City of Minneapolis appeals the denial of qualified immunity in the Karasov action, and numerous Minnesota counties appeal the denial of qualified immunity in the Kampschroers action. … 2) even if there is liability for such action, it was not clearly established at the time the information was accessed in these cases.

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

244 Conn. 101 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Mar 17, 1998

The defendants moved to set aside the jury verdict, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that the imminent harm exception to the qualified governmental immunity doctrine applied to this case. … [A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act, as opposed to a discretionary act.”

Patel v. Hall

849 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to these claims, so the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish both that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the … We must not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality” because “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Id.

Witzke v. City of Bismarck

718 N.W.2d 586 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2006

of the State’s case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, but that prosecutors have only the protection of qualified immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

S.P. v. Newark Police Department

428 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2012

. 2C:25-21, and whether the officers acted in good faith to afford them qualified immunity under the PDVA, N.J.S.A. 2C:25~22. … Based on this determination, we need not reach the City’s defense of qualified immunity under the PDVA. I.

Nesmith Through Nesmith v. Grimsley

702 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 7, 1988

Plaintiff objects to the finding of qualified immunity. … The United States Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Pam Good v. Barbara Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … immunity when probable cause is at issue is clearly erroneous and not de novo.

Price v. Roark

256 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2001

If the allegations do not establish the violation of a constitutional right, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the allegations could make out a constitutional violation, we must ask whether the right was clearly established--that is, whether “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

James T. Giovanetti, D.D.S. And Patricia Ann Giovanetti v. Nicholas J. Tomasi, D.D.S. Wally McLaughlin Robert L. Schroeder, D.D.S. And Omar Whisman

25 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1994

The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the reason that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 4 It is well established that "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established

State v. Dachtler

318 N.W.2d 769 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1982

Did the district court err when it ruled that Aaron Rash was qualified as an expert in glass comparison analysis? 2. … In this case, the State clearly had a reasonable explanation for refusing to produce Gray’s testimony through a request for immunity — the State believed that Gray was involved in the burglary, and the potential for charging

Littlejohn v. Rose

768 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 16, 1985

by impermissible motivation or in disregard of plaintiff’s clearly established rights.” … Rose, individually, is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2024

A court should not define “clearly established law at a high level of generality,” id. … Officer Dorghoud is not entitled to relief on Counts I, III, or IV Even considering the body-worn camera footage, Officer Dorghoud has not established his entitlement to qualified immunity or qualified privilege

Grisham v. Valenciano

93 F.4th 903 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2024

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material fact] … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because neither Everard nor Grisham can point to any clearly established law that such force was unreasonably excessive under the circumstances.

Fils v. City of Aventura

647 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The court then revised its rulings on the Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. … But, where the officer’s conduct is so outrageous that it clearly goes “so far beyond” these borders, qualified immunity will not protect him *1292 even in the absence of case law. Reese v.

Ruegsegger v. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners

197 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claims One, Two, Three and Four because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20 … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Williams v. City of Luling

802 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1992

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [police officer] would have known.” Harlow v. … for summary judgment raising the issue of qualified immunity.

Cotnoir v. University of Maine Systems

35 F.3d 6 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 13, 1994

" with the qualified immunity issue. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Melancon v. Ascension Parish

823 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 1993

If a constitutional violation is established, the Court must then determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. 5 The second prong of this test is clearly satisfied. … was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. 19 Therefore, the defendants would be prohibited from relying on the defense of qualified immunity.