Case law

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

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 .

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

Commonwealth v. ELM Medical Laboratories, Inc.

33 Mass. App. Ct. 71 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1992

Because the qualified immunity of public officials is personal to the official, see Rodrigues v. … ”), even if established, it would not necessarily preclude the liability of the sovereign (in the absence of its immunity), if the jury were to find that Ridley and Frechette, with the protection of qualified immunity, violated

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 .

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

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.

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 .

Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo

113 F.4th 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

As the Supreme Court stated in Mitchell: The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established … And, of course, there’s a class of Bivens cases where raising a qualified immunity defense would be frivolous. Qualified immunity is only available when the constitutional law is not “clearly established.” See Wilk v.

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.”

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.

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

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).

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

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.