Case law

Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual Capacity

477 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Robinson has asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Miller v. Smith

921 S.W.2d 39 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1996

doctrine are unconstitutional as applied to the wrongful death statute; and c) there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the public duty, official immunity and qualified immunity doctrines are applicable. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Poulsen v. City of North Tonawanda, NY

811 F. Supp. 884 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 26, 1993

sufficient to defeat appellants’ qualified immunity. … Lloyd Graves is not entitled to qualified immunity from liability under § 1983.

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Young v. Martin

51 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2002

a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Stewart v. Beaufort County

481 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Feb 6, 2007

Is Deputy Calhoun Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, law enforcement officers performing their discretionary duties “are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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

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

Hilchey v. City of Haverhill

537 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 1, 2008

Before asking the second question, however, the issue of qualified immunity must be addressed. D. Qualified Immunity 1. … Second, the Court must determine whether the right was “clearly established at the time of the alleged violation”. Abrew-Guzman, 241 F.3d at 73 .

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.

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.

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

Campbell v. Erie Township

133 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 2001

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

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

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

Romero v. City of Miami

8 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Anderson The Individual Defendants argue that City Attorney Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, they argue that Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law which prohibits a city attorney from providing advice to a municipality regarding the legality of a random drug

Tickle v. Ballay

259 So. 3d 435 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2018

In this regard, when "a prosecutor 'functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court' he is entitled only to qualified immunity." … As such, they clearly fall within the realm of prosecutorial immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Mr.