Case law

Loch v. City of Litchfield

837 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 17, 2011

“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 … right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Parrish v.

Padilla Roman v. Hernandez Perez

381 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 2005

Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 53 (1st Cir.1997). 4 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions *27 from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … A qualified immunity defense requires a three-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Beverly Nettles-Nickerson v. John Free

687 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

The district court, however, granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Nettles- Nickerson did not have “a clearly established constitutional right to … Qualified immunity is warranted even if a constitutional violation has occurred if the right violated was not clearly established, Estate of Carter v.

Martinez-Baez v. Rey-Hernandez

394 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 14, 2005

Healthy , qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. We discuss each. i. Mt. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Almond v. Tarver

468 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2006

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-pronged inquiry: "The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Arbaugh v. BOARD OF EDUC., COUNTY OF PENDLETON

329 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Aug 6, 2004

Qualified Immunity Thompson asserts the defense of qualified immunity in his reply. … This immunity is available when the conduct of a government employee does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Bell v. Neukirch

376 F. Supp. 3d 989 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 21, 2019

When a party is asserting qualified immunity, "[t]he party asserting immunity always has the burden to establish the relevant predicate facts, and at the summary judgment stage, the nonmoving party is given the benefit of … Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the officer's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Winslow v.

Gilbert v. Feld

788 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 1992

The defense of qualified immunity can support the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the complaint itself establishes the circumstances required for a finding of qualified immunity. Green v. … Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth facts establishing qualified immunity. A qualified immunity defense can, therefore, not be used to defeat the claim on this 12(b)(6) motion.

COM., TRANSP. CABINET, DEPT. HWYS v. Sexton

256 S.W.3d 29 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2008

An agency’s “routine duties” will typically be established by statutes or regulations that very clearly and specifically set forth those actions that the agency must take. 5 For example, in Collins we found that mine site … Since this was clearly a discretionary act, the Commonwealth has not waived sovereign immunity for any alleged negligence in performing this act.

Pullin v. City of Canton

133 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2001

Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (holding that qualified immunity shields state actors only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … seizures is, as a general matter, clearly established.

State v. Dachtler

318 N.W.2d 769 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1982

Did the district court err when it ruled that Aaron Rash was qualified as an expert in glass comparison analysis? 2. … In this case, the State clearly had a reasonable explanation for refusing to produce Gray’s testimony through a request for immunity — the State believed that Gray was involved in the burglary, and the potential for charging

Murphy v. AA Mathews

841 S.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 18, 1992

Although the language of Cutler did not explicitly limit the immunity to defamation cases, later English cases clearly establish its narrow applicability. … If one of those two requirements were lacking, the witness only enjoyed a qualified or conditional privilege, which could be vitiated by establishing malice. Id., 61 S.W. at 796 .

Heather Kerchen v. Univ. of Mich.

100 F.4th 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes government officials from suit to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Although qualified immunity may generally be better resolved on a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must still sufficiently plead facts to show a clearly established constitutional violation

Ross v. State of Ala.

893 F. Supp. 1545 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 7, 1995

Under the qualified immunity defense, the defendants are immune from liability if [the plaintiff’s] complaint fails to state a violation of a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable … The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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.”

Sears v. Bradley County Government

821 F. Supp. 2d 987 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Sep 26, 2011

Even if a government official deprives a plaintiff of a federal right, “qualified immunity will apply if an objective reasonable officer would not have understood, by referencing clearly established law, that his conduct … is entitled to qualified immunity.

Noelle Way v. County of Ventura Robert Brooks Karen Hanson, and Robert Ortiez, Ventura Police Officer

445 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 20, 2006

It denied qualified immunity to Brooks and Hanson on the basis of Giles v. … If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Thomas v. Arnold

696 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2010

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Crooks Johnson held that an officer’s statement that he observed the plaintiffs car cross the center line was sufficient to establish probable cause and qualified immunity.