Case law

Carter v. Butts County

110 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 2, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In wrongful arrest cases, the Eleventh Circuit has “defined the ‘clearly-established’ prong as an ‘arguable probable cause’ inquiry.” Moran v.

Pace v. Capobianco

283 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the individual defendants are due immunity. See generally Saucier v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials, in their individual capacities, from suit unless the law preexisting the defendant official’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to such a high degree that every

Prue v. City of Syracuse

26 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1994

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To establish qualified immunity, defendants must show either that their conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was ‘objectively reasonable’ to believe

Steele v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 710 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

Consequently, Stone was entitled to qualified immunity under Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 592 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 3 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim under 42 USC 1983 fails because he has *717 … not established deliberate indifference on Stone’s part.

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding

J. Chris Lane v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 19, 2025

Qualified Immunity. … first addressing the Appellees’ qualified immunity arguments.

Farnworth v. Femling

125 Idaho 283 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1994

State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Raspberry v. Johnson

88 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable … allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Eastwood v. Department of Corrections of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff’s clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue “violatefd] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so

Sabo v. City of Mentor

657 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 12, 2011

Tkach appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … ) the issue appealed concerned whether a given set of facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

Wood v. Sunn

852 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

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

Williams v. Lopes

64 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 1999

Assuming this case involves clearly established rights, the entitlement to qualified immunity generally turns on the particular facts of a case. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d *42 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987). … The evidence before the Court clearly establishes that plaintiff cannot recall the events with any accuracy.

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”).

White v. City of Lagrange

952 F. Supp. 2d 1353 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 3, 2013

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … White has failed to point to particularized case law showing that the right was clearly established.

Fleming v. State University of New York

502 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2007

clearly established legal rules then in effect.” … complains violated clearly established law.”

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.

Mena v. City of Simi Valley

332 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2003

They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Muehler and Brill argue' that they should be shielded from liability to Mena under the doctrine of qualified immunity. 2 “Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens

Toth v. City of Dothan, Ala.

953 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1996

Both Hadden and Ingram claim they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Thus, in following the framework established in Siegert , the court must first establish whether the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation before delving into the qualified immunity analysis. See Tinney v.