Case law

Wilson v. Lawrence County

260 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

Qualified Immunity 13 "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987). 14 In determining if appellants are entitled to qualified immunity we must ask whether Wilson states a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established

Jones v. Perry County Fiscal Court

185 F. Supp. 3d 947 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity for Judge Alexander “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Record No. 40-1, p. 13] Further, he contends that Jones’ right to associate with his uncle is not clearly established.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bolbol v. City of Daly City

754 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2010

right was clearly established. 1. … to qualified immunity.

Gregory v. City of Louisville

444 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

of clearly established law.” … The Supreme Court noted that when the issue on qualified immunity turned on whether the facts, as alleged, constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional law, the issue on appeal was sufficiently separate from

Haab v. East Bank Consolidated Special Service Fire Protection District of Jefferson Parish

13 La.App. 5 Cir. 954 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 28, 2014

Unlike the absolute immunity provided to the Parish and its departments by the HSA, the HSA provides only qualified immunity to individual Parish employees during a specific emergency event, as no immunity is afforded for … As such, we find that the Parish and its departments, officials and employees are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity pursuant to the HAS, and qualified immunity pursuant to the DIS.

Melancon v. Ascension Parish

823 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 1993

If a constitutional violation is established, the Court must then determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. 5 The second prong of this test is clearly satisfied. … was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. 19 Therefore, the defendants would be prohibited from relying on the defense of qualified immunity.

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

ESTATE OF CASSARA BY CASSARA v. State of Ill.

853 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1994

In order to penetrate defendants’ shield of qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary functions, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established … established and the state officials’ actions clearly illegal.

Patterson v. Armstrong County Children and Youth Services

141 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2001

Qualified Immunity — Substantive Due Process All defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. … The “clearly established law” element of qualified immunity is flexible enough to embrace clearly established law of other circuits. See, e.g., Turiano v.

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

McMORROW v. LITTLE

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that McMorrow's claim must be dismissed. … immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Santana v. Calderon

188 F. Supp. 2d 160 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person … qualified immunity.

Wilson v. Poulos

697 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 2, 2010

Defendant Poulos’s entitlement to qualified immunity is clear under the second prong of the Katz test. 1 The “clearly established” inquiry requires the Court to look to the time of the events in question. … Since this right was not clearly established at the time of Plaintiffs incarceration, Defendant Poulos is entitled to qualified immunity.

Randi Hyatt v. Callahan County

843 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … “A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

Thames v. City of Westland

310 F. Supp. 3d 783 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendant officers argue qualified immunity shields them from liability under § 1983. … Qualified immunity " 'protects government 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

Roucchio v. Coughlin

29 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In order to establish qualified immunity, a defendant government official must demonstrate that his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was