Case law

Sythe v. City of Eureka

78 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FALSE ARREST Government officials performing their discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ANALYSIS For this Court to find qualified immunity for the individual officers in the case at bar, it must reach two conclusions: First, that the law governing the officers’ conduct was clearly established; and second, under

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Humes v. Gilless

108 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

Thus, we may review “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir.1999). … Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Kerr v. Lyford

171 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

Moving for summary judgment, Goar, Minshew, Fleig, and Baggs claimed qualified immunity; Lyford asserted absolute and qualified immunity. B. … Thus, to proceed against a defendant claiming qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence and violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the defendant may then show that he was performing

N.S. v. Kansas City Board of Police

35 F.4th 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2022

Rather than denying qualified immunity, as it had done before, the district court determined that there had been no constitutional violation at all, clearly established or otherwise. … The key issue is whether he is entitled to qualified immunity, which depends on how we answer two questions. First, did his actions violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established?

Sculler v. Sculler

348 N.J. Super. 374 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2001

will not qualify as an asset eligible for distribution. … To the extent that such property is attributable to the expenditure *1150 of effort by either spouse, it clearly qualifies for distribution". Id.

Tinney v. Shores

77 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1996

summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government actors in their individual capacities from civil damage claims, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Albert Flenner and William Glover v. Michael F. Sheahan

107 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1997

The district court granted his motion, holding that Sheriff Sheahan was entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissal of corree 1 tional officers was not clearly established in 1993, the time … “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Rodis v. City and County of San Francisco

499 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 28, 2007

The *1097 court also found Barry and Liddicoet not entitled to qualified immunity because the illegality of the arrest was clearly established at the time. II. DISCUSSION A. … Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves as a defense to § 1983 claims against government officers “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Horne v. Coughlin

191 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the Ninth Circuit believed this constitutional right was already clearly established, it had denied qualified immunity. See id. at 1712 .

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.

Whelehan v. County of Monroe

558 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 22, 1983

only to the qualified good-faith immunity asserted by the respondent in that case. … Therefore the risk of removal, even if made explicit by the examining officers, cannot be regarded as coercive because it existed as an ordinary and clearly apparent consequence of James’s failure to establish his innocence

Hickman v. Laskodi

45 F. App'x 451 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

Laskodi contends that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields him from liability on Hickman’s claim. We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. Blake v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Robey v. Chester County

946 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 1996

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a court determines qualified immunity according to an objective standard: an official’s conduct must not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Only federal constitutional and statutory rights can be considered in evaluating a claim for qualified immunity under Harlow ; violations of clearly established state law alone are not sufficient. Davis v.

Viero v. Bufano

901 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 28, 1995

Immunity Búfano and Little also seek dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. … That is enough to strip them of any putative qualified immunity because, as Hamilton v.

Gardner v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS, FOR KANSAS CITY

641 F.3d 947 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2011

Ritchie is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Gardner, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at … The court further concluded that at the time of the shooting, the law was clearly established on this point, and that Ritchie was thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

John Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin

12 F.3d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1994

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v. … Since Smay properly raised this defense, unless Plaintiffs can show that a sufficient consensus clearly established the existence of a violated constitutional right, Smay' will receive qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’

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.

Knisley v. Pike County Joint Vocational School District

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did *982 not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established ease law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

Coffey v. Quinn

578 F. Supp. 1464 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 14, 1983

At the time of the decision, the law in that circuit was undecided as to whether local legislators enjoyed absolute or qualified personal immunity. … Municipal decisionmakers passing on administrative questions possess qualified good faith immunity, not absolute immunity. See Wood v. Strictland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975); Scheuer v.