Case law

Ross v. Beckham County Board of County Commissioners

61 F. App'x 620 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 31, 2003

able to prove, but whether certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

Wagner v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

607 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 23, 1985

However, the Supreme Court has concluded that an immunity that was “well established at common law at the time § 1983 was enacted and ... … here just because these officers’ immunity is absolute rather than qualified.

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).

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.

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.”

M.M.T. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 30, 2018

The Court will only address the qualified immunity issue because the Government and Taitano are obviously entitled qualified immunity and it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed, multi-factor analysis to determine whether … Therefore, Taitano is entitled to qualified immunity. See , e.g. , United States v.

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.’

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.

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.

Blouin v. Spitzer

356 F.3d 348 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 2, 2004

The court did, however, determine that they were entitled to qualified immunity, because "plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established right. … Qualified Immunity 34 We now consider qualified immunity, which shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official "violated clearly established rights of which

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Dean v. Childs

262 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2004

involved ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 11 If no constitutional violation occurred, the defendant has qualified immunity from liability. 12 “Qualified immunity … Childs claims common-law immunity under the public duty doctrine.

Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry

421 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 2, 2005

We will, therefore, address this issue in our qualified immunity analysis. … Finally, we must determine "whether a 'reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated' the clearly established right at issue." Id.

William Cass v. City of Dayton

770 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2014

In the alternative, the district court held that House was entitled to qualified immunity because Jordan’s constitutional rights were not clearly established. … There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis.

Ellsworth v. City of Lansing

34 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 16, 1998

In the absence of such clearly established law existing at the time of the incidents at issue in this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Regardless, however, such a right unquestionably was not clearly established in 1997. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Schroeder v. McDonald

41 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 29, 1994

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” … Thus, defendants acted in complete disregard for clearly established prison regulations. Accordingly, defendants fail the second part of the qualified immunity test.

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.

Arnold v. McClain

926 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 21, 1991

to good faith or qualified immunity for his actions. 2. … Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law by Defendant or the requisite nexus to his actions.

Tinsley v. Pittari

952 F. Supp. 384 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. … To the extent the claim is so construed, defendants’ previously-established entitlement to qualified immunity is applicable. The outcome is the same under a Fourteenth Amendment analysis.