Case law

Jerauld ex rel. Robinson v. Kroger

353 S.W.3d 636 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

Thus, Kroger could also use the defense of qualified official immunity. … Clearly, his actions were of a discretionary nature. We believe the acts undertaken by Kroger were discretionary in nature and entitled him to qualified official immunity.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages unless a plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established … If there is a constitutional violation, the second question is: Whether the right violated was “clearly established?” Id.

Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York

124 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2000

clearly established constitutional rights. … At the very least, McManus is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. McManus was informed of an outstanding warrant and acted thereupon.

Chad Kelley, in His Capacity as Jefferson County Corner and Individually v. Bryan Adams, Brandon Adams, and Skylar Wilson

2024 Ark. App. 440 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 18, 2024

We have stated that section 21-9-301 “establishes . . . an immunity defense.”6 We have also said that section 21-9-301 provides immunity from civil liability for negligent acts but not for intentional torts.7 Kelley … He contends that common-law qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know.”

James McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Department Roy Livingston, Richland County Sheriff Department Sheriff of Richland County

431 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 12, 2005

Livingston moved for summary judgment below on grounds of qualified immunity, but that motion was denied. … Livingston moved for summary judgment, claiming that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Flynn v. City of Santa Clara

388 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, N.D. California · May 22, 2019

However, viewpoint discrimination is barred under clearly established First Amendment law. … Alcarez but, even if not, at the very least, qualified immunity protects the individual officers as there was no clearly established law holding that defense of others is a legal defense to a § 148(a)(1) violation. III.

Ronald Fosnight v. Robert Jones

41 F.4th 916 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Qualified im- munity protects government officials from damages liability unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 3 We note for completeness that the Supreme Court has never authorized a Bivens action … The district court may entertain a qualified-immunity defense on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Marley v. Crawford County, Arkansas

383 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields defendants “[f]rom liability for civil damages *1132 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 204-07, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (qualified immunity does not shield conduct which violates clearly established rights; inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is

Santiago-Mateo v. Cordero

109 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1997

Public officials alleged to have committed civil rights violations are entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The defense is not available, however, if the official's conduct violates a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. See Harlow v.

Matt Moonin v. Kevin Tice

868 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

We must grant Tice qualified immunity unless Moonin can show that Tice “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City of San Francisco v. … The City previously had required officers to obtain prior written 8 We emphasize that we are here considering only the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity, not whether requiring notice or approval

Pintar v. Houck

690 Utah Adv. Rep. 45 · Court of Appeals of Utah · Sep 1, 2011

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of ...

Gene Bartholomew v. Commonwealth Of Pa

221 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2000

established at the time those warrants were executed. 15 We note in this connection that, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the "clearly established constitutional right" should be set forth with specificity … Thus, while it was "clearly established" that warrants must be particular, the narrower and more appropriate question, i.e. whether it was clearly established that one has a constitutional right to be free from a search pursuant

Hicks v. City Of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

immunity. 31 Clearly, the threat to fire Mr. … Diffey's lone vote. 72 The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks' clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Heather Burton v. Patricia Richmond

276 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The Defendants have argued that qualified immunity bars the entirety of this lawsuit; specifically, contending at the time of the placement in 1985, the law was not clearly established that state caseworkers had a duty to … The Defendants ask this Court to reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and dismiss this action.

Christman v. Kick

342 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 28, 2004

More specifically, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … When considering a question of qualified immunity, however, a district court must determine whether, given the “specific context of the case,” the right was clearly established.

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

Sanabria v. Martins

568 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2008

not violated clearly established law.” … immunity, as a matter of well-established law.

Marten v. Swain

242 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 16, 2017

right, and the designated evidence does not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … As additional bases to defeat qualified immunity, the Martens also assert that Swain violated their clearly established constitutional rights by providing false testimony during the proceedings to further the criminal cases

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Krug, for his part, challenges the district court’s conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

Smith v. State of Ala.

996 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 27, 1998

Where the law that the defendant allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … The court will first determine if Smith’s rights under the equal protection clause were clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.