Case law

Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee

915 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

We review orders denying qualified immunity de novo, Stoudemire v. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to look to whether the officials’ acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 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.

David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Peggy Boardman, Jeffrey P. Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bell

91 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1996

As the district court noted, qualified immunity was therefore available as a complete defense. … The district court properly applied the defense of qualified immunity here.

Vent v. Johnson

303 S.W.3d 46 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Feb 26, 2009

We disagree and hold that the qualified immunity afforded by section 21-9-301 must be asserted and proven as an affirmative defense. … In addition, in discussing the difference between absolute immunity and qualified immunity, this court has stated (in a somewhat different context) that, while absolute immunity “bars a suit at the outset,” qualified immunity

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

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.

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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.]

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.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the

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.”

Dearmon v. Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

R.Crim.P. 41 and state law did not constitute a § 1983 violation because the officers had not violated clearly established constitutional law. … If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id.

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

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.

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.

Alburquerque v. Faz Alzamora

357 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 9, 2004

Defendants additionally claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”