Case law

Robinson v. White County

452 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1338 , 164 L.Ed.2d 53 (2006), the test for qualified immunity is: 10 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established.

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Austin Joseph Goodwin v. Board of Education of Fayette County

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2019

to qualified immunity. … established statutory laws rendering qualified immunity inapplicable.”9 The statute cited by the Petitioner as imposing a mandatory or discretionary duty on the Respondents to supervise him is W.

Commonwealth v. ELM Medical Laboratories, Inc.

33 Mass. App. Ct. 71 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1992

Because the qualified immunity of public officials is personal to the official, see Rodrigues v. … ”), even if established, it would not necessarily preclude the liability of the sovereign (in the absence of its immunity), if the jury were to find that Ridley and Frechette, with the protection of qualified immunity, violated

Keller v. Elyea

496 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

Elyea was entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that he had a clearly established constitutional right to have his medical conditions addressed, and that his letters sufficed to establish Dr. … The district court indeed viewed this issue through too narrow a lens: there need not be a case “on all fours,” with identical facts, in order for a constitutional right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified

Bradford v. County of Oakland

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2020

B “Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Galloway v. City of Abbeville

871 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2012

Qualified immunity on Galloway’s unlawful arrest claim (Count B) Duhaime also invokes the qualified immunity doctrine to shield him from Galloway’s Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim. … Historically the Supreme Court required lower courts to decide the constitutional issue before inquiring into whether the claimed right was clearly established. See, e.g., Scott v.

McIntyre v. United States

336 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The defense of qualified immunity applies unless the law is clearly established either by materially similar precedent or by general legal principles that apply with obvious clarity to the facts of the case. Hope v.

Brown v. Head

228 F. Supp. 2d 1324 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 30, 2002

Pelzer, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), the Supreme Court recently modified the Eleventh Circuit’s qualified immunity standard with respect to what constitutes a “clearly established” right. … Indeed, Eleventh Circuit courts have repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. E.g., Id.; Herren v.

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.

D'Aguanno v. Gallagher

50 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 1995

Therefore, to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense, plaintiffs must establish that defendants’ conduct violated “‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, citing precedent which establishes a general right will not do.

Kenneth W. Martin v. John P. Malhoyt, John Doe(s) Shirley Ann Stevens v. David H. Stover, John Doe

830 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1987

The district court recited the Harlow standard: qualified immunity shields government officials as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Ely v. Dearborn Heights School District No. 7

150 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Jeffrey Bartold and Todd Thieken argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the conduct in question, there was no clearly established law holding that “a governmental … “Although the focus-of the clearly established prong is whether the official had notice that his .alleged conduct, was improper, ... qualified immunity is an objective rather than a subjective inquiry.”

Sutton v. Tompkins County

617 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 25, 2007

Under federal law, “[t]he defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not *98 violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent … When qualified immunity is asserted in a motion for summary judgment, of course, the facts material to the claim of qualified immunity must not be genuinely disputed. See Cecere, 967 F.2d at 829 .

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.”

Thomas Patrick Walsh v. Nicholas Mellas and Harry Martin

837 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1988

It was not “plain error” for the district court to deny Mellas and Martin qualified immunity. … Defendants’ delay in pursuing the qualified immunity issue has frustrated these important goals.

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.

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.

Sondra Weisbrod v. Virginia Donigan, Individually and as an Employee of the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

651 F.2d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 20, 1981

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the record establishes they did not act in disregard of clearly established constitutional rights or with a malicious intent to deprive plaintiff of her rights. *336 Wood v … Because we uphold the district court’s finding of qualified immunity, we need not reach defendants’ claim of absolute immunity.

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.