Case law

Harcz v. Boucher

300 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 2018

immunity because the Sixth Circuit's prior case law clearly established that the officers' conduct was unlawful. … "clearly established" prong.

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.

Sanabria v. Martins

568 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 26, 2008

not violated clearly established law.” … immunity, as a matter of well-established law.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … 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

Knight v. Pugh

801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … We reinstate our prior decision in its entirety and supplement, by this opinion, our previous discussion of qualified immunity. SO ORDERED. .

Mencer v. Bd. of Ed./Birmingham, AL

134 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 1998

Thus, the court did not deny Hammonds qualified immunity based only on "evidence sufficiency" but on its belief that a reasonable person in Hammonds' position would have known his conduct violated clearly established law … Thus, if we are confronted with an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, we may exercise our discretion to review the district court's preliminary determination as a means of reaching the issue of clearly established

Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court

802 F. Supp. 2d 870 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

To avoid summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must first show “a violation of a constitutional right” and that the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’ … Summary judgment is, thus, precluded on the basis of qualified immunity for Teaven so long as the violated right “was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Defoor v. Evesque

694 So. 2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 2, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defoor also contends that Evesque was not entitled to immunity while performing the function of inspecting and cleaning the test site. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Drakeford v. County of Orange

213 F. App'x 542 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity analysis consists of two questions. … Thus an officer whose actions in fact violate clearly established law may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those actions are reasonable in light of the information the officer had at the time of the arrest

Edmond v. Winters

226 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 2016

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from liability in their individual capacities so long as they have not violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Parrish v. … Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at

Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

379 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2004

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, Mitchell [was] immune unless his actions violated clearly established law.”).

Cobb v. Marshall

481 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 14, 2007

City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit held that in cases where qualified immunity is implicated, “some factual detail is necessary, especially if [the court is] to be able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly … Qualified Immunity Defendant invokes qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs § 1983 equal protection claim against him in his *1259 individual capacity. (Doc. No. 5 at 15-16.)

Komlosi v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

64 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 7, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability if their conduct either “ ‘did not violate “clearly established rights” of which a reasonable person would have known, or ... it was

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Thomas v. City of Annapolis

113 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1997

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” … The parties herein do not always clearly distinguish between immunity and privilege.

Doak Walker and Maurice Turner v. R. Schaeffer, Patrolman, and J. Sheridan, Patrolman

854 F.2d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 12, 1988

allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. … We find this to be a sound basis for the claim of qualified immunity here.

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 1998

Qualified immunity sometimes is erroneously referred to as "good faith immunity." Before Harlow v. … Id. at 818-19 . ¶ 13 In its place, stands qualified immunity, which is a two-pronged, objective test: Does the plaintiff assert violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and was that right clearly established

Holguin v. Lopez

584 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2008

However, qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Texas law of official immunity is substantially the same as federal qualified immunity law.” Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154, 1160 (5th Cir.1997).