Case law

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

Ham v. Greene

248 Conn. 508 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · May 4, 1999

Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his … New Haven, supra, 950 F.2d 870 , first concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law only if, on the facts found, their conduct *523 either did not violate “ ‘clearly established . .

Huddleston v. Maurry

841 S.W.2d 24 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 2, 1992

To establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a movant must show that: 1. he pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; 2. his position with the government enjoys a quasi-judicial status; 3. he was … In responding to an emergency they still were required to obey the safety standards established in article 6701d. We conclude that the officers have not established, as a matter of law, a basis for qualified immunity.

Wilkerson v. University of North Texas Ex Rel. Board of Regents

878 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 20, 2017

In turn, the doctrine of qualified immunity guards officials from civil li- ability “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Clearly established law prob- ably foreclosed, not welcomed, Wilkerson’s due process claim. 10 We therefore reverse and render qualified immunity to the administra- tors on the § 1983 claim. Accord King v.

Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County

705 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2013

Governmental actors performing discretionary func- tions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity on Travis’s excessive-force claim because he did not violate clearly established law.

Estate of Alvarado ex rel. Alvarado v. Shavatt

673 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 2017

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages unless (1) a plaintiff alleges facts that make out a constitutional violation, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time … Because we reverse on this ground, we do not address Shavatt’s arguments about whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

798 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To qualify as clearly established, “‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brown v.

Bonnie Lee Hinchman v. Edwin L. Moore Jr. And Robert A. Dombrowski

312 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2002

Immunity The defendants maintain, as alternative defenses, that they are entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Lee v. Cline

149 Md. App. 38 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 2002

In Lee’s case, the circumstances do not so clearly establish that there was a second stop. … The Qualified Immunity Debate At the summary judgment hearing, Lee’s attorney argued that, even if the evidence was insufficient to establish that Cline acted with malice, Lee must be allowed to proceed on his constitutional

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

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.

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.

Turturro ex rel. Turturro v. City of New York

28 N.Y.3d 469 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2016

In the specific proprietary field of roadway safety, a municipality is afforded “a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Friedman, 67 NY2d at *480 283 ). 1 The qualified nature of … This qualified immunity, which applies in a specific field of proprietary functions, is separate from the governmental function immunity defense, which applies only to governmental functions, as explained.

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.

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.

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

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.