Case law

Cole v. Barnes

128 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Barnes and George contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment claims because the Sheriffs Department had probable cause, in the … Qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position

A.M. ex rel. Law v. Grant

889 F. Supp. 1495 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 21, 1995

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit recently explained that [flor the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context

Shaboon v. Duncan

252 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Further, these violations might be found to be so “clearly established” as to overcome Duncan’s qualified immunity defense.

Foulks v. Cole County, Missouri

991 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

The defendants have failed to show that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Thus, we review Foulks' claim under the clearly established constitutional standard set forth in Estelle

Bankhead v. Knickrehm

360 F.3d 839 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 11, 2004

record] ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … The question on appeal is whether the summary-judgment record supports a finding that defendants violated clearly established law. Ibid.

Timothy Beers v. Jon Fouts et al.

2018 DNH 144 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 10, 2018

In granting defendant Forcier’s motion to dismiss and the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, this court determined that the law was not clearly established in December … Qualified Immunity Further, this court previously concluded that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity from plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the group strip search.

Pratt v. Hogan

631 F. Supp. 2d 192 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 6, 2009

Qualified immunity bars a claim for monetary damages against government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to allege the violation of a constitutional right, defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity if plaintiffs constitutional rights were not clearly established

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Kenneth E. Hardy v. Jefferson Community College and Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Mary Pamela Besser and Richard Green

260 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

Green and Besser then filed a motion to alter or amend the district court’s ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity, asserting that “the right to free speech in the classroom setting is not clearly established … Standard of review The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ferris v. Borough of Baldwin

247 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2017

The Court also concludes that Scott and Lederman are entitled to qualified .immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—“whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged … Yerke, 604 Fed.Appx. 149, 152 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying Werkheiser to discuss qualified immunity and explaining that “the law [regarding ‘elected officials’ speech’] was not clearly established”).

Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

Concepcion v. MUNICIPALITY OF GURADBO

558 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 11, 2007

Plaintiffs opposed this request stating that the Complaint survives a qualified immunity attack because it charges Defendants with violations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights, of which co-defendants … Furthermore, as to the other prongs of the qualified immunity test, the right to be free from any sort of political discrimination is a clearly established constitutional right which a reasonable government employee is aware

Vose v. Kliment

506 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2007

Kliment and Rouse moved to dismiss the case, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity against Vose’s claims because the applicable law on the rights of government employees to speak out was not clearly established … Secondly, they claim that the rights Vose alleges were violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant events. To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we look to two issues.

Amundsen v. Jones

533 F.3d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2008

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of -6- the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even … was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Lopez v. Modisitt

488 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 4, 1980

a qualified immunity. … Likewise, this Court is not satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity in the instant case can summarily be established.

Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold

873 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

), from which defendants claim qualified immunity. … Because Yalkut’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.

Jones v. Dalton

867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.

Kanciper v. Lato

989 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 7, 2013

If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would … Although qualified immunity typically is asserted by police officers, the qualified immunity standard of arguable probable cause also applies to prosecutors. See Murphy v.

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard

918 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Minard filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming he violated Cruise-Gulyas's constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects police from personal liability unless they violate a person's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Kisela v.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.