Case law

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.

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.

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.”

ESTATE OF CASSARA BY CASSARA v. State of Ill.

853 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1994

In order to penetrate defendants’ shield of qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary functions, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established … established and the state officials’ actions clearly illegal.

Evans v. City of San Diego

913 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 19, 2012

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For example, “qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his ... conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law- and the information” possessed by the officer at the

Donald Xiques v. Charme Knight

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 21, 2003

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering … Plaintiff argues that the issues in these two cases are not identical, because the Sixth Circuit opinion merely dealt with the issue of qualified immunity, and whether or not defendant had violated “clearly established law

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

Ortega v. City of Kansas City, Kansas

659 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 18, 1987

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that the court erred in holding that the individual defendants were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … We recognize that in the ordinary case, an official’s violation of clearly established state statutes does not deprive an official of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Morales v. Toledo

638 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity 8 This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of Qualified Immunity bars Plaintiffs claims against Colon. 9 Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that “allows public officials to perform discretionary … taken violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Randi Hyatt v. Callahan County

843 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … “A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Martinez-Baez v. Rey-Hernandez

394 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 14, 2005

Healthy , qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. We discuss each. i. Mt. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

We disagree. 9 "Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if " 'a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

Thomas v. Arnold

696 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2010

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Crooks Johnson held that an officer’s statement that he observed the plaintiffs car cross the center line was sufficient to establish probable cause and qualified immunity.

Roucchio v. Coughlin

29 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In order to establish qualified immunity, a defendant government official must demonstrate that his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was

Brooks v. Whiteford

384 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 21, 2019

The Supreme Court has recently explained that when a court is deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, "the clearly established right must be defined with specificity," that the court should not "define … Thus, the fact that the right to be from excessive force, as a general principle, has long been clearly established is not dispositive of whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.