Case law

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Wendell Domina v. George VanPelt

235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

show a violation of clearly established law. … The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

Young v. Martin

51 F. App'x 509 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 21, 2002

a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Goodrich v. Everett

193 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 24, 2006

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity. The district court applied the two-prong test for qualified immunity set forth in Saucier v. … “When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, it is the plaintiffs burden to prove that the state officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.2005).

Childress v. Walker

943 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 30, 2013

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the plaintiff cannot prove that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity applies.

Campbell v. Erie Township

133 F. Supp. 2d 953 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 7, 2001

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct results in the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional … To withstand a motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity in the Sixth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish two things.

Chris Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1996

Because we agree that plaintiffs did not have a clearly established right after Frisby to picket as they did on October 10, 1991, we hold that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the qualified immunity issue before us concerns whether plaintiffs had a clearly established right on October 10, 1991, to picket as they did in front of the administrator's home, we note that Madsen left unresolved

Browning v. Snead

886 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 17, 1995

Doory, 14 F.3d 993, 995 (4th Cir.1994) our Court of Appeals discussed generally the application of qualified immunity as follows: “Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability for civil monetary damages … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

McGovern v. City of Minneapolis

480 N.W.2d 121 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 21, 1992

Qualified immunity The individual officers argue they are entitled to qualified immunity against respondents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We agree. … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the officials violated clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known.

Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Amtreco, Inc. v. O.H. Materials, Inc.

802 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 13, 1992

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Assuming that plaintiffs had constitutional rights protecting them from the alleged wrongful conduct of the federal defendants, these rights are obviously not clearly established.

Pleasant v. Lovell

654 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 12, 1987

Alternatively, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable investigator would have known. … Under Harlow , then, qualified immunity is established if it is proven that there was no violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Parks v. Warren Correctional Institution

51 F. App'x 137 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

allegedly infringed was “clearly established[.]” … cannot review the issue of qualified immunity.

Sanford v. Russell

381 F. Supp. 3d 905 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 2019

Fabrication of Evidence Claim The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's fabricated evidence claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law at the time of … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, "the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established." McDonald v.

Fernando Jacquez v. R.K. Procunier

801 F.2d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth stated, “[ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” 472 U.S.

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?

García-Díaz v. Cintrón-Suárez

120 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 23, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, the court focuses on the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. 1.

Kent v. Katz

327 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 20, 2004

Under both federal and state law, a qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his … In sum, Kent has not established that he is entitled to JMOL on either excessive force or qualified immunity. II.

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under

Jones v. Dalton

867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.