Case law

Handmaker v. Henney

128 N.M. 328 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1999

resolution of the Essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.’ ” Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 615 , 845 P.2d at 138 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct … 23(A), our review by writ of error is necessarily limited by the nature of immunity established by the Legislature.

McIntosh v. Weinberger

617 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 24, 1984

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Assuming arguendo, that the law was not clearly established at the time the results of the reconstruction panel were destroyed, defendant Turner’s defense of qualified immunity should be sustained.

Bradford v. County of Oakland

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2020

B “Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed

Mettler Ex Rel. Burnett v. Nellis

280 Wis. 2d 753 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Mar 22, 2005

We conclude that O'Connor's affidavit is sufficient to qualify her to give her opinions. … containing those opinions should be considered at summary judgment. 5 Nellis does not argue that expert opinion is inappropriate, only that O'Connor's affidavit is insufficient. 6 Nellis argues that O'Connor's affidavit does not establish

Teresa Buchanan v. F. Alexander

919 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2019

The qualified immunity inquiry comprises two questions: (1) “whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights” and (2) whether that right was clearly established. 32 “We now have discretion to skip the … That is because of the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry, which requires a plaintiff to show that any violation of rights was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Kaufman v. Carter

952 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1996

I conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to prisons. … Qualified immunity is not available where an official violates “clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Cline v. Union County, Iowa

182 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Oct 30, 2001

elements essential to his claims, Defendants are immune from liability under Iowa Code § 760.4 (3) (2001), Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, and Cline has not established his section 1983 … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Lyde v. New York City

145 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 2001

The general rule is that “ ‘doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their *354 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Tickle v. Ballay

259 So. 3d 435 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2018

In this regard, when "a prosecutor 'functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court' he is entitled only to qualified immunity." … As such, they clearly fall within the realm of prosecutorial immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Mr.

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

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.

Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents

594 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2008

This Court held in its August 4, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 2986389 , that there is no question of law as to whether the following rights were clearly established: (1) the right not to be terminated from employment at a public uni-versify … established law.

Tryon v. Town of North Branford

58 Conn. App. 702 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 11, 2000

The doctrine that determines the tort liability of municipal employees is well established. “ ‘Although municipalities are generally immune from liability in tort, municipal employees historically were personally liable for … Andrews, supra, 211 Conn. 507 -508, in which our Supreme Court discussed the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the general rule of qualified governmental immunity.

Moore v. Tri-City Hospital Authority

696 F. Supp. 1496 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 27, 1988

Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (qualified immunity defense rejected in patronage dismissal of a policeman because “as of 1982 the law was ‘clearly established’ that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation … Qualified Immunity (6) Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities on either of plaintiff’s claims?

Thompson v. City of Clio

765 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity a. … were clearly established in April and May of 1990.

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Gullatte v. Potts

654 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 1981

of the qualified immunity. 590 F.2d at 110 . … qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to the action.

Picciano v. McLoughlin

723 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 13, 2010

“Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed unless defendant’s alleged conduct, when committed, violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (“Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless

McCoy v. City of Columbia

929 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 11, 2013

On appeal, the officers argued that, under Reichle , the passenger’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established and they were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 391-92. … In the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court asks whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of McCoy’s arrest. See Pear *562 son, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Sharp v. Kelsey

918 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity With regard to the manner of handling Ms. Sharp, defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In the Sixth Circuit, “when a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: 1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and 2) establish that a reasonable