Case law

Thomas J. McDonnell v. Michael Cournia, Richard Menzel, Gary Moe, Thomas Christopher

990 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 1993

To determine whether an official’s conduct violates clearly established law requires a two-step inquiry. First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred. … In this case, then, qualified immunity shields the defendant police officers from McDonnell’s damage action if “a reasonable officer could have believed [McDonnell’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Garvey v. MacDonald

665 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 22, 2009

To summarize, courts in strip-search cases follow the familiar three-part qualified immunity inquiry: (1) have the plaintiffs alleged a deprivation of an actual constitutional right; (2) was the right clearly established … Accordingly, the measuring date of August 4, 2008, is firmly established for qualified immunity purposes here.

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Cunningham v. Gates

989 F. Supp. 1256 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 15, 1997

IMMUNITY STANDARD “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The threshold determination of whether the law is clearly established is a question of law for the court. [Citations.]

Gilmore-Bey v. Coughlin

929 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 1996

The defendants clearly are entitled to qualified immunity for acts taken prior to the effective date of the statute, November 16, 1993. As found in Woods v. … Therefore, the law cannot be said to have been clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct underlying this action, and the defendants are protected under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Hewitt v. Grabicki

596 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 1984

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct.

Jackson v. Curry Cnty.

343 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 1, 2018

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Qualified Immunity As noted above, Curry County Defendants move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Darryl Lunon v. Kathy Botsford

946 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

Discussion Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … I agree with the court insofar as it holds that the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right of appellee Lunon.

Motley v. Parks

432 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 29, 2005

If the right was hot clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields the officer from further litigation. Id. … Qualified Immunity Having determined that Motley’s factual allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, we turn our attention to evaluating whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer

George Hedges v. George Randy Poletis

177 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Due Process Claim Hedges had clearly established due process rights.

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al.

2018 DNH 096 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 15, 2018

“Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shelters government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct 21 does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity. In Foster v.

Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

311 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

Although we conclude that the facts establish a constitutional violation, we believe the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759-60 , 107 S.Ct. 2672 , 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987) (qualified immunity dismissal of § 1983 claim where constitutional violation found but right was not clearly established precludes § 1988 award of attorney

David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

214 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Second, even if the arrest of Wadkins violated a clearly established constitutional right, Detective Arnold maintains that he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably; that is, a reasonable … See Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 316 (“[T]he most obvious possibility [of exceptional circumstances supporting qualified immunity despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right] is mistaken official advice

Taylor v. City of Shreveport

653 So. 2d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

Further, the court found that the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because *236 their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional principle which a reasonable person would have known." … . § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Kaltner v. Pebbles

628 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 29, 1986

Before the court addresses substantive issues of § 1983 law, it must first decide whether the defendant may benefit from the doctrine of qualified immunity. Harlow v. … The rule of 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

Shultz v. Sundberg

577 F. Supp. 1491 · District Court, D. Alaska · Jan 13, 1984

Defendants Sundberg, Vaden, Mix, Sheffield, Gorsuch and Hickey’s Motion for Summary Judgment — Qualified Immunity. … Under the test for official immunity, as modified by Harlow , on a motion such as this for summary judgment, the court may determine, “not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District

402 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

denied the teachers’ request for qualified immunity. … Conclusion Because the searches in this case did not violate clearly established law, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The denial of summary judgment is accordingly REVERSED.

Dennis J. Domegan v. Michael v. Fair

859 F.2d 1059 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 20, 1988

The defense is unavailable when an official has violated a “clearly established” right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … If plaintiff’s right to be free from the claimed harm was clearly established — and in this case, we think that is so — then the defendants do not enjoy Harlow immunity. See, e.g., Bonitz, 804 F.2d at 166-68 .