Case law

Chennault v. Mitchell

923 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil lawsuits when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … If the facts alleged do not establish that the official violated a constitutional right, then “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity” and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Lazoda v. Maggy

900 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, N.D. New York · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified Immunity Principles Defendants have steadfastly asserted from the outset of the instant case that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … were then clearly established.” van Emrik v.

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.

Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources

106 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified immunity may not be asserted as a defense to an action alleging the failure of a public official to perform ministerial acts. (Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. … It draws a distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties, and between absolute and qualified immunity.

Pierce v. Gilchrist

359 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2004

Clearly Established Law When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, after identifying the constitutional right allegedly violated, courts must determine whether the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of … In response to defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court analyzed whether the law prohibiting such conduct was clearly established as of January 8, 1986, the day of the alleged arrest. Id. at 581.

DeVries v. State

221 Ariz. 201 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Mar 31, 2009

or thwarting established public policy. … Here, the trial court determined that qualified immunity applied if the jury found that the factual prerequisites under A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(7) were established, thereby allowing the jury to determine only the disputed facts

Landy v. Irizarry

884 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1995

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a police officer must establish facts satisfying one of two tests: “either that his conduct did not violate ‘clearly established rights’ of which a reasonable person would have known, … , do not violate clearly established rights of which they should have known.

Siefert v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

354 F. Supp. 3d 815 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 15, 2018

"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 of which a reasonable person … Williams-Ash , this Court cannot conclude that County Defendants have violated a clearly established procedural due process right. The County Defendants therefore are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. c.

Griner v. Minster Board of Education

128 Ohio App. 3d 425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1998

may be asserted to establish nonliability: "(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division * * *, the employee is immune from liability … Rather, appellees proceeded in their motion for summary judgment on the assumption that whether or not negligence was established, they were immune from liability.

Clara Cheeks v. Mark Jakob

80 F.4th 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 1, 2023

of clearly established law.” … As the Supreme Court has often reminded us, defeating qualified immunity requires a constitutional rule that was “clearly established,” not just “suggested by . . . precedent.” City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 142 S.

Godman v. City of Fort Wright

234 S.W.3d 362 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 31, 2007

The access is contingent upon the receipt of a report from a qualified traffic engineer, agreed upon by the Zoning Administrator, establishing that the special treatment will have no adverse affect on the roadway safety and … Nevertheless, the Godmans point out that there is no immunity for a discretionary act if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to

Santangelo v. State

101 A.D.2d 20 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 12, 1984

In any event, even if a rule of qualified immunity were to be applied here, we would affirm. … them only qualified immunity; see, also, Anderson v New York State Div. of Parole ( 546 F Supp 816 ) granting absolute immunity (see discussion, p 28).

In Re Petition of S. R. A. Inc.

219 Minn. 493 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Apr 13, 1945

Clearly, the land-grant cases are not in point and establish no principle applicable to contracts for the outright sale of government property. … Ct. 293 , 66 L. ed. 573, supra), establish clearly how the state may protect the federal government’s paramount lien right and how in turn the federal government may protect itself.

Pace v. Capobianco

283 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, the individual defendants are due immunity. See generally Saucier v. … Qualified immunity protects government officials, in their individual capacities, from suit unless the law preexisting the defendant official’s supposedly wrongful act was already established to such a high degree that every

Kipps v. Caillier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 30, 1999

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even if defendants violated Kipps's clearly established constitutional right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable.

Handmaker v. Henney

128 N.M. 328 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1999

resolution of the Essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.’ ” Carrillo, 114 N.M. at 615 , 845 P.2d at 138 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct … 23(A), our review by writ of error is necessarily limited by the nature of immunity established by the Legislature.

Traversa v. Ford

718 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Assuming arguendo that Traversa stated viable claims under § 1983 and § 1985, the Defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation … Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation of Traversa’s Complaint. 4.

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Gulledge v. Smart

691 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 29, 1988

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court must focus on the particular facts involved in the alleged deprivation and whether the law at the time of the alleged deprivation was “clearly established … to qualified immunity as to that claim.