Case law

Chagnon v. Bell

468 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1979

These holdings clarify the scope of acts for which officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In view of the state of the law at the time defendants acted, it is clear that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated by defendants were anything but “clearly established.”

Muzychka v. Tyler

563 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1983

Judith Tyler, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has moved for summary judgment claiming she is immune from liability on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly, an FBI agent’s decision whether to stop and search a suspect is a discretionary function entitling the agent to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Druckenmiller v.

Boyd v. Arnone

48 F. Supp. 3d 210 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2014

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 would have … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

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.

Greene v. Camreta

588 F.3d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 10, 2009

If a government official “could ... have reasonably but mistakenly believed that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,” he is entitled to qualified immunity. Jackson v. … Because Camreta’s alleged misrepresentation in support of his request for a protective custody order — again, assuming it occurred — violated the Greenes’ clearly established rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity

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.

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

MacLean v. Secor

876 F. Supp. 695 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

established at the time of his confinement, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants, however, are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because, at the time plaintiff was detained, this liberty interest was not a “clearly established” right.

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.

Whittington v. Town of Surfside

490 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 6, 2007

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … As stated above, “[qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

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.

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

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.

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Cameron v. Lang

274 Ga. 122 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 25, 2001

OFFICIAL (QUALIFIED) IMMUNITY 1. … issue of qualified immunity in favor of the issue of causation.

Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education

323 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 2003

Public officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively … Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three *212 steps.

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.

Conklin v. Cohen

287 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 1973

Furthermore, it is clear that the owners did not qualify as "contractors" or "statutory employers," within the foregoing definitions thereof. … [owner's] negligence," clearly stated a cause of action against the owners, and, as clearly, were sufficient to withstand the owners' Motion to Dismiss. II.

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

Nicole Howell v. Rob Sanders

668 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

issue [] ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The only remaining inquiry to establish qualified immunity under Kentucky law is whether the facts suggest that Sanders acted in bad faith. See Rowan Cnty., 201 S.W.3d at 475.