Case law

Ely v. Dearborn Heights School District No. 7

150 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Jeffrey Bartold and Todd Thieken argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the conduct in question, there was no clearly established law holding that “a governmental … “Although the focus-of the clearly established prong is whether the official had notice that his .alleged conduct, was improper, ... qualified immunity is an objective rather than a subjective inquiry.”

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Hickey v. Hayse

188 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Dec 17, 2001

A government official enjoys qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Williams v. … To find that an officer has violated the clearly established constitutional right negating the defense of qualified immunity, the trial court must find binding precedent establishing the right.

Mullinax v. McElhenney

672 F. Supp. 1449 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 10, 1987

At best, defendants could be entitled to qualified immunity for these acts if, in doing the acts, they did not violate a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … and property rights were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed at the time.

DelMonico v. Traynor

38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106 · Supreme Court of Florida · Feb 14, 2013

A qualified privilege requires the plaintiff to establish express malice. … Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.2007), characterized Myers as establishing “the principle of the litigation privilege in Florida, essentially providing legal immunity for actions that occur in judicial proceedings.”

Harper v. Carbon County School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … But even if the court concluded that Defendants did violate a right, qualified immunity still applies because the right is not clearly established.

Cole v. Sharp

898 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 11, 1995

The defendants have also raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Chavez v. Illinois State Police

27 F. Supp. 2d 1053 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 5, 1998

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must clear two separate hurdles. The plaintiff must show, first, that the right is, in fact, a clearly established right, Apostol v. … In the interests of completeness, the court will consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis and will assume, arguendo, that the plaintiffs have established that “freedom of movement” is a clearly established

Jones v. Buchanan

325 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

“[T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the events at issue. Id. … immunity. 7 Thus, years before 1999, it was clearly established that a police officer was not entitled to use unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force against a handcuffed, secured citizen, who posed no threat

Pinson v. United States Department of Justice

246 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity The DOJ asserts, cursorily, that Dignam and Samuels are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.12 MTD at 8–9. … As discussed below, the Count concludes that Pinson had a clearly established right. The qualified immunity defense thus turns on whether there was a violation of that right.

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.

De Ventura v. Keith

169 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials, such as law enforcement officials, are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established rights … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). 1 To obtain qualified immunity under Saucier, Defendant Keith must establish that in light of the clearly established law on probable cause for warrantless arrests, he reasonably

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Michael Romano v. Ivan Canuteson

11 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 17, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity recently has been discussed on a number of occasions by this Court. The following excerpt from Zinker v. … qualified immunity.

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.

Thomas v. Hurley

51 F. App'x 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2002

We agree that Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. 1 AFFIRMED.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hathaway v. Bazany

507 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Brosseau, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), makes it highly unlikely that the Hathaways could prevail in establishing that Bazany infringed on a clearly established right because of its emphasis on the “‘hazy border between excessive

Ronda Marsh v. Phelps County

902 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) there exists a genuine issue of material