Case law

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.”

Nicholas v. Attorney General

584 Utah Adv. Rep. 13 · Utah Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2007

Because the provision is not clearly directed at remedying past gender discrimination, Hibbs does not apply. … Because neither the death of a daughter-in-law nor the assistance of a healthy adult child qualifies for family-care leave, Ms. Nicholas could only qualify for leave under the self-care provision of the FMLA. .

Hubbard v. Taylor

452 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 20, 2006

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit where their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. (quoting Harlow v. … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity. Id.

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council-President Government

279 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2002

They maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Ms. Cozzo’s claims because interpretation of the TRO to require her eviction was clearly within Captain People’s discretionary authority. … Cozzo clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, we are required to address only the second pro ng of the qualified immunity test, that is, whether Deputy Joiner’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Chadwell v. Brewer

59 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 2, 2014

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was “clearly established” when the violation occurred.

Linda Mays v. H.G. Rhodes

255 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

Qualified immunity generally shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the right allegedly violated must be clearly established. Id.

Hegarty v. Somerset County

848 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 1994

Qualified Immunity All Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The standard for qualified immunity is that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Timothy Daryl Atkins v. John Gibson Lanning, Kenneth D. Fouts and Randall Craig Ruark

556 F.2d 485 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 8, 1977

Hence the arresting officer is entitled to the qualified immunity defense of a good faith belief that his behavior was proper. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Pierson v. … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

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 .

Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department

319 F.R.D. 571 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 19, 2016

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education

334 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defense Once a governmental actor interposes the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff, in order to overcome it, must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions “violated clearly established statutory … been clearly established.

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS

713 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to a ruling on qualified immunity, the first question a court should address is “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

State v. Mason

724 P.2d 1289 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 2, 1986

Although the Arizona Supreme Court granted parole board members only qualified immunity in Grimm v. … Qualified immunity, as contrasted with absolute immunity, would leave the parole board liable for conduct involving discretionary functions violating “clearly established statutory or *1293 constitutional rights of which

Johnson v. City of Detroit

944 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability under section 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the officer defendants cannot claim qualified immunity for their conduct on April 11, 1994 on the grounds that the right asserted in Johnson’s complaint is not clearly established.

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.”

Scott Furman Maxey, a Minor, by His Mother & Next Friend, Dianna Maxey v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Heriberto Martinez, Individually John Dentist, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually, and James Borren, Individually, Joseph Donald Cole, by His Mother & Next Friend, Virginia Cole v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Luis A. Reinoso, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually John Dentist, Individually, and James Borren, Individually

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: 13 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Brassell v. Turner

468 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 15, 2006

A two-step approach is used to evaluate qualified immunity claims. … If the plaintiffs allegations could make out a constitutional violation, the court then asks “whether the right was clearly established — that is, whether ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.