Case law

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.

Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Leibowitz v. CITY OF MINEOLA, TEX.

660 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Bittner asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials from liability for monetary damages for acts in the performance of discretionary functions that were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Peter Wenk v. Edward O'Reilly

783 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2015

of qualified immunity, and (2) the issue appealed concerns not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but whether certain alleged facts reflect a violation of clearly established law.” … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Altman v. City of High Point

330 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 20, 2003

immunity analysis and determine whether the right was clearly established. … It is certainly true that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates clearly established federal 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.

Chevallier v. Hand

884 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 6, 2012

Because an “in the presence” requirement for a warrantless police arrest on a misdemeanor offense is “far from clearly established,” according to the Eighth Circuit, the question of whether Defendant is entitled to qualified … If Defendant had probable cause to arrest, under the circumstances, his actions would receive qualified immunity. Veatch, 627 F.3d at 1259 .

Portera v. State of Ala. Dept. of Finance

322 F. Supp. 2d 1285 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 21, 2004

Where the law that the government employee allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offpnse, the employee is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . … Thus, the remaining issue under the qualified-immunity analysis is whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law. 16 *1296 To determine whether McClenney’s action violated clearly established law, the court

Caygill v. Jablonski

78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992

R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.

Lopez v. Modisitt

488 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 4, 1980

a qualified immunity. … Likewise, this Court is not satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity in the instant case can summarily be established.

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.

Barron v. Public Health Trust of Dade County

22 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 21, 1998

Miller, 57 F.3d 986, 991-93 (11th Cir.1995) (reversing district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendants on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that transferring employees, … entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Shawn C. Pride, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Various John Does, Trooper Jan Lamb, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee

997 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

Because Officer Lamb raised the defense of qualified immunity, it was incumbent upon Pride to “show that the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and come forward with facts or allegations sufficient … to show that the official violated the clearly established law.”