Case law

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.

David L. McCartney, M.D. Darryl Williams, M.D. And Dorma Kohler v. Donald R. May, M.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … (footnote: 4) Appellants have failed to conclusively establish McCartney and Williams’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

Rudi Acosta Alma Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco Daniel Yawczak

83 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 1996

Qualified Immunity Determining whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity involves the .consideration of two questions: “1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … hold that Yawczak is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Roucchio v. Coughlin

29 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In order to establish qualified immunity, a defendant government official must demonstrate that his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, or that it was

Tucker v. Evans

276 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2002

Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998). 5 The prison employees are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated Tucker's "clearly established" constitutional rights. Harlow v. … There was no violation of clearly established law in the training of Daniels, and thus the claim is without merit. III.

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of 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 it was taken

Hammett v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services

153 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

Because Plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, and given the scant factual record on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is premature to grant qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that court cannot frame question of qualified immunity as factual to avoid determining whether the law was clearly established at time of alleged violation). 17 AFFIRMED.

International Islamic Community of Masjid Baytulkhaliq, Inc. v. United States

981 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Aug 29, 1997

Qualified immunity exists where the federal agents' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of *306 which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Generally, 'good faith' or qualified immunity attaches in a suit for civil damages when the conduct of the government employee performing a discretionary function "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, "summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established." Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. "[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it." Hilliard v.

Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.

10 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 17, 1998

or qualified immunity. … Furthermore, in assessing qualified immunity in this case, the court notes that the “[l]aw is clearly established by holdings, not by inferences from language in opinions.” Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1400 .

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

24 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity For much the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 50-51 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct

Hassell v. Fischer

879 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

 immunity because they had  violated  clearly  established  law,  announced  in  Earley  I,  when  they  administratively  added  and  then  applied  the  conditions  of  a  PRS  term  to  Hassell.7  The  District  Court …   clearly  established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which a reasonable person would have known.’” 

Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott

639 F. App'x 354 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2016

Whether a defendant receives qualified immunity turns on two questions: did the defendant violate a constitutionally protected right, and if so, was the right clearly established at the time the act was committed? … In determining whether clearly established law has been violated, we examine the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Samaniego v. City of Kodiak

2 P.3d 78 · Alaska Supreme Court · May 19, 2000

The superior court set forth its view of Alaska's law of qualified immunity in a memorandum and ordered the parties to supplement their briefing. It then granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald 14 test for official immunity. 15 Under this standard, "the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts

Mercer County Board of Education v. Holly Ruskauff

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2019

First, the BOE argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity and that qualified immunity bars negligence claims against governmental officials. … Accordingly, the BOE is entitled to qualified immunity; and, as such, we need not address the BOE’s other assignments of error.

Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Chapman

814 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

The officers asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the City asserted that plaintiff could not establish municipal liability. Id. at 1 (Page ID #97). … If, for example, “the [City] ratified [the officers’] misconduct which, though unconstitutional, was not in violation of clearly-established law,” a court could find the officers immune but the City liable. Baker v.

Bell v. Marseilles Elementary School

160 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

“A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context … Board of Educ., 894 F.Supp. 386, 390 (D.Kan.1995) (the law regarding student strip searches is clearly established); Konop, 26 F.Supp.2d at 1196 (denying qualified immunity because “the holding in T.L.O. is not, in any way

TonyaMarie Adams v. Nathan Trimble

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2023

Trimble appeals, claiming he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. … As such, the evidence does not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity is appropriate here.

Moray v. City of Yonkers

924 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in eases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly … Even when the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established, qualified immunity may still bar a plaintiffs suit if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate the rights

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

448 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2006

He asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation and, in the alternative, no violation of clearly settled law. … If, on the other hand, a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. . . .