Case law

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Mullinax v. McElhenney

672 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 10, 1987

At best, defendants could be entitled to qualified immunity for these acts if, in doing the acts, they did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … and property rights were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed at the time.

DelMonico v. Traynor

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 14, 2013

A qualified privilege requires the plaintiff to establish express malice. … Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.2007), characterized Myers as establishing “the principle of the litigation privilege in Florida, essentially providing legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings.”

Harper v. Carbon County School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … But even if the court concluded that Defendants did violate a right, qualified immunity still applies because the right is not clearly established.

Terrell v. Petrie

763 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 17, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY This issue is the crux of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The central question is whether Plaintiff can prove a violation of clearly established constitutional rights if allowed to go to trial. … If the Defendants acted reasonably, even if erroneously, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Plaintiff claims Defendants violated three clearly established constitutional rights. They are considered in turn: 1.

Jones v. Buchanan

325 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

“[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … immunity. 7 Thus, years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a handcuffed, secured citizen, who posed no threat

Pinson v. United States Department of Justice

246 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity The DOJ asserts, cursorily, that Dignam and Samuels are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.12 MTD at 8–9. … As discussed below, the Count concludes that Pinson had a clearly established right. The qualified immunity defense thus turns on whether there was a violation of that right.

Smith v. Blodgett

798 F. Supp. 637 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 8, 1992

Defendant moved to dismiss this Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that the law was not clearly established that Washington’s administrative segregation regulations created a liberty interest protected … The court did not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

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.

Bankhead v. Knickrehm

360 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

record] ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … The question on appeal is whether the summary-judgment record supports a finding that defendants violated clearly established law. Ibid.

Blair v. City of Cleveland

148 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2000

is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense. … However, assuming the officers succeed in their appeal of this court’s order, it could be determined that a reasonable officer would not have known that his actions violated a clearly-established right, and that the officers

De Ventura v. Keith

169 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials, such as law enforcement officials, are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established rights … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). 1 To obtain qualified immunity under Saucier, Defendant Keith must establish that in light of the clearly established law on probable cause for warrantless arrests, he reasonably

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.

Tenenbaum v. Williams

193 F.3d 581 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 13, 1999

Government officials “enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was … Whatever van Emrik “clearly established” therefore could not have guided the behavior of the individual defendants here and they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the district court held. IV.

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.

J. J. v. City of San Diego

42 F.4th 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Prong one of this test is therefore not satisfied, and qualified immunity applies on that basis. Prong two, the clearly established prong, confirms this result. … Thus, unless J.K.J. can show that on the date the officers encountered Jenkins, it was clearly established that their conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity applies also under prong two.

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Michael Romano v. Ivan Canuteson

11 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 17, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity recently has been discussed on a number of occasions by this Court. The following excerpt from Zinker v. … qualified immunity.

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.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.