Case law

Montgomery v. Conrad

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 20, 2022

When qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations must “plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Engel v. Buchan

778 F. Supp. 2d 846 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 4, 2011

immunity test: whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law. … , because Engel has properly stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right, and because that right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation, Buchan is not entitled to qualified immunity against

McDay Ex Rel. McDay v. City of Atlanta

740 F. Supp. 852 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1990

Qualified Immunity Officers Cartwright and Price move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … The qualified immunity defense first recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierson v.

Romero v. City of Miami

8 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2014

Qualified Immunity as to Defendant Anderson The Individual Defendants argue that City Attorney Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity. … Instead, they argue that Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law which prohibits a city attorney from providing advice to a municipality regarding the legality of a random drug

McAllister v. Price

615 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2010

No. 10-1213 7 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … established Fourth Amendment rights and thus deprives the defendant of qualified immunity.

Parks v. City of Warner Robins, Ga.

841 F. Supp. 1205 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

Grady v. Town of Somers

294 Conn. 324 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 22, 2009

New Haven, supra, 767 ; and subsection (a) (1) (A) of § 52-557n “clearly and expressly abrogates the traditional common-law doctrine in this state that municipalities are immune from suit for torts committed by their employees … accrues to *347 the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee in the

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.

Mary D. Branch v. Officer Timothy Gorman

742 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2014

Qualified immunity is available to government officials who prove their conduct did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Officer Garbisch is entitled to qualified immunity.

Allen v. Thompson

14 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 9, 2014

Because Brewer has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that Grace’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that clearly established right, Grace is not entitled to qualified immunity on Brewer’s unreasonable … Grace focuses his argument for qualified immunity on whether there was a clearly established First Amendment right to record police activity. This argument misses the point.

Breeden v. University of Mississippi Medical Center

241 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 5, 2001

Under “qualified immunity,” government officials are not subject to liability for the performance of their discretionary actions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The test for qualified immunity is understandably twofold. First, the court must determine whether the conduct alleged would have deprived a § 1983 plaintiff of a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right.

McKay v. LaCroix

117 F.4th 741 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

They also asserted qualified immunity. … A state official is entitled qualified im- munity unless: (1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Cope v.

Daker v. Ferrero

506 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As stated, in determining whether Defendants have qualified immunity, the Court determines (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Brook Mallak v. Anthony Runde

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 19, 2016

The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Flowers v. Bennett

135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 11, 2000

Even without Hill, there is good reason to believe that “clearly established” authority exists to deny qualified immunity in this case. … In a qualified immunity analysis, two questions arise: (1) Does the plaintiff allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) Was the law that the public official is alleged to have violated clearly established

Johnson v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS

370 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 27, 2005

To establish qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, Defendant Warnecke must show that she is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint. Bradford v. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test requires the Court to consider whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Starks v. City of Minneapolis

6 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 14, 1998

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed his or her conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the … “An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident.”

Lott v. Edenfield

542 F. App'x 311 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 3, 2013

Because the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to any clearly established rights, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that they adequately pleaded violations of clearly established Eighth Amendment rights sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Doe v. S & S Consolidated I.S.D.

149 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 26, 2001

As the Siegert court noted, “[o]nce a defendant pleads ... qualified immunity, ‘[[o]]n summary judgment, [a court] may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established … Apart from Anderson’s admonition in the narrow qualified immunity context that “right[s][an] official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson notes too