Case law

Adrow v. Johnson

623 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 1985

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that even if this search violated the fourth amendment, they are protected by the qualified immunity accorded to certain government officials and are therefore not liable for damages … (“One of the cases [establishing the applicable standard] was a case from this circuit. As the law was, therefore, established, the defendants were not entitled to immunity.” Id. (emphasis added)).

Alan Baynes v. Brandon Cleland

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2015

Clearly Established Although the district court agreed that Baynes established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it ultimately found that Baynes’ claim could not survive summary judgment because … This right was ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002.”)

Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield

950 F.2d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that: government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Wolfel v. Morris

972 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 1992

Government officials who perform discretionary functions and whose conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known are entitled to qualified immunity … In a case decided before the qualified immunity doctrine was firmly established in Harlow , our Circuit held that immunity was available to “a prison official who relies on a facially valid regulation unless he knows or should

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9203, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1350, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,215, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2025 James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest, and Grover Marks v. Detective Rick Grabenstein

102 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1997

Once again, under the clearly established law of Ybarra v. … inspection at that location did not violate clearly established law.

Perez v. Duran

962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013

However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.

Uinta County v. Pennington

286 P.3d 138 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2012

/d. [114] In order to establish a claim of qualified immunity, the claimant must prove; 1) the officer was acting within the seope of his or her duties; 2) the officer was acting in good faith; 3) the officer's acts were … record when a public official asserts qualified immunity.

McDay Ex Rel. McDay v. City of Atlanta

740 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1990

Qualified Immunity Officers Cartwright and Price move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense first recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierson v.

Hendon v. City of Piedmont

163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001

.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.

Lyde v. New York City

145 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2001

The general rule is that “ ‘doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their *354 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Cullen v. Phillips

2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1809 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001

Defendants sought dismissal on several grounds including qualified immunity, laches, and failure to state a claim. … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have

Calnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department

200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001

We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.

Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission

275 Conn. 38 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 16, 2005

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … and qualified immunity; (2) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 25-43c; (3) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557g; (4) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557j; and (5) the plaintiffs own

Parks v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.

841 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

Hunter v. Heath

95 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 11, 2000

Whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Analysis Defendants make only one argument in favor of qualified immunity, namely that they did not violate Hunter’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Werner v. Wall

836 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

Werner’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims for damages against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that AD 02-10 violated the constitutional … Because clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants in this case that the procedures set forth in AD 02-10 were unlawful, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

McAllister v. Price

615 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2010

No. 10-1213 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … established Fourth Amendment rights and thus deprives the defendant of qualified immunity.

Christopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Southerland v. City of New York

680 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 237, the pertinent 4 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the 5 defendant’s actions, see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. … Thus, even if the right at issue “was clearly established in certain 12 respects,” a state actor “is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable 13 competence could disagree’ on the legality of the