Case law

Coffin v. Brandau

614 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.9 On August 7, 2007, the Coffins lodged this appeal challenging the district court’s holding that no clearly established law provided fair warning to the Deputies … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door.15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.”

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS

713 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to a ruling on qualified immunity, the first question a court should address is “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago

932 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In any event, the court said, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the stop did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from li- ability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.

679 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2012

The Iqbal Court concluded that whether a particular constitutional right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes presents an abstract issue of law that permits an appeal at the' dismissal stage. … established constitutional right); Winfield, 106 F.3d at 530 (recognizing jurisdiction over appeal of denial of qualified immunity insofar as district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted legal right was clearly

Maldonado Maldonado v. Lausell

681 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 22, 1988

Before the Court can reach the merits of this claim, however, we must examine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit, i.e., whether, at the time of Maldonado’s discharge, “clearly established law” … At a minimum, defendants further argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this fourteenth amendment claim because it was not clearly established in February 1985 that Maldonado would be entitled to a pretermination

Carmen Leverette v. Margaret Bell, in Her Individual Capacity, and South Carolina Department of Corrections

247 F.3d 160 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 13, 2001

Allen instructs that “an official may claim qualified immunity as long as his actions are not clearly established to be beyond the boundaries of his discretionary authority.” Id. at 593 . … Layne qualified immunity analysis — that is, examining whether the law was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. See supra note 4.

John Allen Caldwell v. Woodford County Chief Jailer, James Moore, Harry Stephen Tracy Rick Adkins Daniel E. Clark W. Keith Broughton

968 F.2d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 1992

The question whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … In Russo , we granted qualified immunity to the officers and noted that the use of a taser in order to avoid a dangerous situation or the resort to even greater force did not violate clearly established law.

Timothy Nelson v. City of Davis

685 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2012

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields an official from damages in a civil suit unless the plaintiff can make the showing that the official’s actions violated a constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established … As we have previously held, however, “[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground[ ] that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

McCollum v. Garrett

880 S.W.2d 530 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1994

During the time in which McCollum essentially acted as an investigator, the protection available to him was qualified immunity. … . -, 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993), as follows: ... government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established

Fountain v. Talley

104 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 25, 2000

Collier clearly establishes the law. … The law can be "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals or the highest court of the state where the case arose.

Jones v. City of Cincinnati

521 F.3d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Police enjoy qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged show that the police violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established. Saucier v. … We have already rejected defendants’ contention that the officers should receive qualified immunity.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have

Henderson v. Simms

54 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 14, 1999

In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, public officials must show that their actions, objectively viewed, did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would … Mar.26, 1999), and, of course, since it predated the defendants’ conduct anyway, it certainly could not constitute “clearly established” law of which they should have known. See, e.g., Hodge v.

Maney v. Fealy

69 F. Supp. 3d 553 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 17, 2014

In determining whether a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must decide “whether a constitutional violation occurred and ... whether the right violated was clearly established.” … Instead, the Fourth Circuit rested its finding for the officer on the basis, of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, finding that the officer did not violate clearly established law. Id. at 359-60 .

Pam Pino v. E.P. Higgs, Curt Faust, Marcella Wolf, Jim Naranjo, Harlan Weiss, Pablo Hernandez

75 F.3d 1461 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 5, 1996

Qualified immunity shields public officials from § 1983 liability if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In other words, a party attempting to avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity “is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.”

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

Ober v. Evanko

80 F. App'x 196 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 21, 2003

The District Court denied Appellants’ motion, finding that Appellants violated Ober’s clearly established First Amendment rights and, thus, were not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Don Blankenship v. Joe Manchin, Iii, in His Individual Capacity and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of West Virginia

471 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 20, 2006

Finding a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, the district court denied the application of qualified immunity. This appeal followed. II. … As Blankenship’s complaint alleges a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not attach to the Governor’s actions.

Houston v. Partee

776 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 1991

Now the other defendants named in the Fifth Amended Complaint — four police officers (collectively the “Officers”) — have moved to be dismissed on immunity grounds, this time under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead the question is whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right against that defendant, who had a correspondingly clearly established duty not to infringe that right.

Pennington v. Hobson

719 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 1989

Only those public officials who can show that their conduct was not violative of any of the plaintiffs clearly established rights are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … In the qualified immunity analysis, the issue was whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the arrest violated clearly established law.