Case law

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.

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.

Hendon v. City of Piedmont

163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001

.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.

Cullen v. Phillips

2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1809 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001

Defendants sought dismissal on several grounds including qualified immunity, laches, and failure to state a claim. … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have

Swofford v. Eslinger

671 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2009

Swofford’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Swofford’s rights were clearly established. 471 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). Mr.

Calnimptewa v. Flagstaff Police Department

200 Ariz. 567 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 28, 2001

We said it would be absurd to deny immunity for a failure to stop which, if made, could have resulted in a failure to arrest which would clearly have been immunized. … against the public defendants only if the plaintiffs established gross negligence.

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 .

Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission

275 Conn. 38 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 16, 2005

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … and qualified immunity; (2) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 25-43c; (3) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557g; (4) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557j; and (5) the plaintiffs own

Amnesty International, USA v. Battle

484 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2007

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates “clearly established … The purported right Amnesty seeks to invoke in order to pierce Defendants’ qualified immunity here is not as clearly established as the rights invoked by the arrested protestors in Jones .

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

We disagree. 9 "Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if " 'a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery's arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

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

Christopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

MONTEILH v. County of Los Angeles

820 F. Supp. 2d 1081 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that a reasonable public officer would have known … “whether the right was clearly established.”

Santiago-Mateo v. Cordero

109 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1997

Public officials alleged to have committed civil rights violations are entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The defense is not available, however, if the official's conduct violates a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. See Harlow v.

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.

Spinks v. Township of Clinton

402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008

his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier v.

Gregg v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

661 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2009

Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), when the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must include in the pleadings factual allegations necessary to support the conclusion that the defendants violated clearly established … Gregg’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as to these defendants. See Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2003).

Michael Jones v. City of St. Louis

104 F.4th 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

failing to respond to his requests to be released based on the court order deprived Davis of a clearly established liberty interest. 375 F.3d at 719. … qualified immunity claims.

Southerland v. City of New York

680 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 237, the pertinent 4 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the 5 defendant’s actions, see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. … Thus, even if the right at issue “was clearly established in certain 12 respects,” a state actor “is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable 13 competence could disagree’ on the legality of the

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “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 … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.