Case law

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division

58 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Karla Kaye Kuehl v. Stephen P. Burtis Terry Satterlee Other John Doe City of Sioux Falls Ezekial James McBeth

173 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

We reject this challenge, but we must first establish our jurisdiction to hear the case. When a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity turns upon an issue of law, it is an appealable “final decision.” … In determining whether the district court should have granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we must consider whether Kuehl has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and whether

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.

Graham v. Nadeau, et al.

2009 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 2009

A court ordinarily may move directly to the second step in the analysis and award qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the right on which his claim is based was clearly established when the defendants … Thus, Loven is entitled to qualified immunity for the same reason as Nadeau.

Doe v. S & S Consolidated I.S.D.

149 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jun 26, 2001

As the Siegert court noted, “[o]nce a defendant pleads ... qualified immunity, ‘[[o]]n summary judgment, [a court] may appropriately determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established … Apart from Anderson’s admonition in the narrow qualified immunity context that “right[s][an] official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson notes too

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

State v. Saenz

967 S.W.2d 910 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 16, 1998

Although Texas courts use the terms "qualified” and "official" immunity interchangeably, see, e.g., Travis v. … for federal (qualified) and state (official) immunity tests.

Marin v. McClincy

15 F. Supp. 3d 602 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 11, 2014

Witmer, 526 F.3d 104, 111-112 (3d Cir.2008) (declining to analyze the Constitutional claims and granting qualified immunity under the “clearly established” prong); Robinson v. … Id. 5 Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiffs Constitutional rights were violated, defendants are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the rights were not clearly established.

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

640 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2011

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 … She therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. A.

Rothschild v. Grottenthaler

716 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 1989

Qualified Immunity Finally, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity under the standard established in Harlow v. … Only the individual defendant, Charles Grotten-thaler, may be eligible for qualified immunity. The good faith immunity created by Harlow applies only to “government officials performing discretionary functions.”

Alake v. City of Boston

40 Mass. App. Ct. 610 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 1996

child was a policy decision immune from suit, the decision by a school principal and teacher to send an injured handicapped child out to the playground unaccompanied was “clearly ministerial,” and therefore was not immunized … App. 4th 218, 227-228 (1995) (qualified immunity provision of statute did not abrogate general duty to supervise students); Doe v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

Adams v. Glaser

138 F. Supp. 3d 727 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 5, 2015

Individual Capacity—Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” 90 As explained by the United States. … Supreme Court, “qualified immunity seeks to ensure that defendants reasonably can anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability.” 91 “In essence, qualified immunity “avoid[s] excessive disruption of government”

Michael Sheets v. Ozean Moore

97 F.3d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1996

The court also refused to grant qualified immunity, concluding that at the time Moore rejected plaintiffs mail, plaintiffs right to receive such mail was clearly established. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Ramirez v. United States

81 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal.” Mitchell v. … contrary to established law that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mercado v. City of Orlando

323 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2004

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (holding, in the context of “clearly established law,” that “[o]fficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because … The Court thus, finds that the law was not clearly established and that. Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse, as his supervising officer, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

Cullinan v. Abramson

128 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

The grounds on which the defendants relied included both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights."