Case law

Gregorich v. Lund

54 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 9, 1995

a “clearly established” constitutional right “of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Gregorich responds *414 that this right was clearly established. We review the district court’s decision to deny Justice Lund qualified immunity de novo. Bakalis, 35 F.3d at 322 . 2.

Lilienthal v. City of Suffolk

275 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 4, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendant Outlaw has raised the issue of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a section 1983 action “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. v. Town Of East Hampton

192 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 22, 1999

After reciting the principle that government officials in their personal capacities are immune from suits for money damages where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … violated any clearly established constitutional or federal rights. 21 Qualified immunity serves important interests in our political system.

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.”

Justice v. Danberg

342 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2009

The court disagreed, noting that qualified immunity required a two-step analysis: first, whether there was a constitutional violation, and second, whether the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established … qualified immunity.

Witzke v. City of Bismarck

718 N.W.2d 586 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2006

of the State’s case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, but that prosecutors have only the protection of qualified immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Pam Good v. Barbara Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

S.P. v. Newark Police Department

428 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2012

. 2C:25-21, and whether the officers acted in good faith to afford them qualified immunity under the PDVA, N.J.S.A. 2C:25~22. … Based on this determination, we need not reach the City’s defense of qualified immunity under the PDVA. I.

Fields v. Blake

349 F. Supp. 2d 910 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 20, 2004

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “[o]fficials exercising discretionary powers are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Once a plaintiff has *922 established a constitutional violation, courts evaluating a qualified immunity claim must decide whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

Defoor v. Evesque

694 So. 2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 2, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defoor also contends that Evesque was not entitled to immunity while performing the function of inspecting and cleaning the test site. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Prater v. Catt

443 S.W.3d 6 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 28, 2014

Even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights— or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm or if it is committed with … We agree that Officer Catt was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Praters’ negligence claims. Sgt. Sam was not in the vicinity of the accident, nor was she required to be.

Price v. Roark

256 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2001

If the allegations do not establish the violation of a constitutional right, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the allegations could make out a constitutional violation, we must ask whether the right was clearly established--that is, whether “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

James T. Giovanetti, D.D.S. And Patricia Ann Giovanetti v. Nicholas J. Tomasi, D.D.S. Wally McLaughlin Robert L. Schroeder, D.D.S. And Omar Whisman

25 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1994

The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the reason that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 4 It is well established that "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established

Allen v. Kline

507 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 23, 2007

Qualified immunity shields from *1156 liability government officials performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known … If plaintiffs sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity will not protect defendant.

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

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.

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2024

A court should not define “clearly established law at a high level of generality,” id. … Officer Dorghoud is not entitled to relief on Counts I, III, or IV Even considering the body-worn camera footage, Officer Dorghoud has not established his entitlement to qualified immunity or qualified privilege

Grisham v. Valenciano

93 F.4th 903 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2024

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material fact] … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because neither Everard nor Grisham can point to any clearly established law that such force was unreasonably excessive under the circumstances.

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.

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.