Case law

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.

Joseph De Ritis v. Thomas McGarrigle

861 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 2017

not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … Here, addressing both prongs of qualified immunity, the District Court concluded that Roger had violated De Ritis’s right to free speech and that the right, as defined by the District Court, was clearly established.

Amundsen v. Jones

533 F.3d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2008

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of -6- the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even … was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

John Schleck and Robert Kraft v. Ramsey County, Suzanne Alliegro, Michael Moriarity and Kathleen Mahoney

939 F.2d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 26, 1991

“Whether an official may prevail in [her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ... … No other ‘circumstances’ are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity.” Davis v.

Sauls v. Montgomery County

18 S.W.3d 310 · Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · May 18, 2000

Therefore, in view of the confusion regarding the terms, “official immunity” and “qualified immunity,” it is not clear from the record that appellees presented the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity” to the trial … Thus, we do not consider the merit of “qualified immunity” as a ground for summary judgment in favor of Williams, individually.

Fortunati v. Campagne

681 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. Vermont · Dec 29, 2009

Under qualified immunity doctrine, government actors are not liable for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Judge Sessions recently laid out the second step as follows: The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the officials’ actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional lights of which

Dearmon v. Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

R.Crim.P. 41 and state law did not constitute a § 1983 violation because the officers had not violated clearly established constitutional law. … If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id.

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

Estate of Smith v. Michigan

256 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 7, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on all federal constitutional claims. … Furthermore, when a defendant asserts a qualified immunity bar in a motion to dismiss a section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs complaint must *713 establish the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Clark v. Milam

152 F.R.D. 66 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 1, 1993

It is difficult to establish a defense is clearly insufficient. Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1112 (E.D.N.C.1984). … Struck. 16 Failure to plead RICO allegations with sufficient probability to establish probable cause of causal connection. Struck. 17 No duty. Struck. 18 Sovereign immunity, qualified privilege.

LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. v. HALLIBURTON

328 Ga. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 31, 2014

Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including that defendants were entitled to sovereign and/or qualified immunity. … And “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” Ruff, 315 Ga. App. at 456 (footnote omitted).

Snider v. Pekny

899 F. Supp. 2d 798 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 27, 2012

Governmental officials are entitled to immunity from civil liability under § 1983 for their actions, with the important qualifier that the officials’ conduct must not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional … Snider’s argument against qualified immunity is that his “Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, seizures, and arrest was clearly established at the time.” DE 98 at 12.

Biase v. Kaplan

852 F. Supp. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1994

In order to defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant official violated a “clearly established” right held by the plaintiff. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Willis v. Neal

247 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2007

Willis also bears the burden of establishing that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 778 (6th Cir.2006). … This court has previously held, as did the district court, that Tennessee law provides qualified or good faith immunity of government employees for state law torts. Rogers v.

Berry v. Craftsman

148 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1977

The intent of this statute is clearly to establish immunity for all governmental bodies except in conformity with the statute, N. J. S. A. 59 :1-2. English v. Newark Housing Auth., 138 N. J. Super. 425, 428 (App. … A. 59 :1-2 clearly dictates that defendant may not be held liable.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

57 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

‘good faith’ qualified immunity cannot attach.” … ’t do it’ or that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Crosby v. University of Kentucky

863 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ,.. from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The closest precedent in this circuit, in fact, noted that this area of law was not so clearly established as to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Garvie v.

Ramirez-Lluveras v. Pagan-Cruz

833 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine is an “escape hatch” from a state actor’s liability under section 1983. … A state actor does not benefit from qualified immunity if: (1) the plaintiff makes out a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

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.

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard

918 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Minard filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming he violated Cruise-Gulyas's constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects police from personal liability unless they violate a person's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Kisela v.