Case law

Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.

679 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2012

The Iqbal Court concluded that whether a particular constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes presents an abstract issue of law that permits an appeal at the' dismissal stage. … established constitutional right); Winfield, 106 F.3d at 530 (recognizing jurisdiction over appeal of denial of qualified immunity insofar as district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted legal right was clearly

Ohio Ex Rel. Manuel v. Ohio Department of Health

810 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 2, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his actions are objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Defendants have qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s “rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the [Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that

John Paff v. George Kaltenbach

204 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2000

Fields, 178 F.3d 170, 174 (3d Cir. 1999). 17 A court presented with a claim of qualified immunity must examine both the law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and the facts available to the … a right to leaflet peacefully where they were. 59 When an officer violates clearly established law and the facts reasonably known by the officer indisputably show that the officer's conduct was illegal, qualified immunity

Williams v. Goldsmith

4 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 29, 1998

The Clearly Established Law. In Jenkins v. … immunity, which turns on whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Debbie Floyd v. Larry Laws, and City of Sherwood, a Municipal Corporation

929 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Because these rights are clearly established, Floyd contends, defendant Laws was not entitled to a jury instruction on qualified immunity. … If Floyd’s line of reasoning were correct, then any plaintiff could preclude her opponent’s qualified immunity defense simply by alleging violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Dayton

134 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

The district court denied summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue, finding that Gabringer was not entitled to qualified immunity because: (1) the affidavit filed by Gabringer in application for the search warrant … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer

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.

Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig

764 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 28, 1991

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established … As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

kenney v. davidson

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Thus they are not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

957 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Tveraas v. Coffey

818 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 5, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from civil suits to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … To establish entitlement to such protection, a defendant must show that he has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

Neague ex rel. Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir.1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

Jackson v. City of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Ward v. Noonan

147 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit for damages where their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

37 Kan. App. 2d 694 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Apr 27, 2007

The District claimed that Poston’s injury occurred in an area that was close enough to the indoor gymnasium to qualify as an “open area” for purposes of recreational use immunity. … The court noted that there was an intent by the legislature to “establish a broad application of recreational use immunity.” 273 Kan. at 592 . In Robison v. State, 30 Kan.

Natasha Whitley v. John Hanna

726 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal.” Morgan v. … Therefore, 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

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have