Case law

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

Graniczny v. City of El Paso, Tex.

809 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2011

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from suit under § 1983 to government officials provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which … Thus, this analysis encompasses the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis previously mentioned: whether there was a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of

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

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

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

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.

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

Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Division

58 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2014

Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

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.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Carey v. Maloney

480 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2007

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in believing … Qualified Immunity as to Fox and Maloney As described above, “[t]he right of an individual not to be subjected to excessive force has long been clearly established.” Calamia v.

Reed v. Kemper

673 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

In this court Reed contends that Kemper is not entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that Turner clearly establishes that the rationale articulated in Kemper’s affidavit is not related to peno-logical objectives. … Michelle Bones, however, is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. Complaint examiners follow the law so long as they do their job in examining complaints in good faith.

Graham v. Nadeau, et al.

2009 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 2009

A court ordinarily may move directly to the second step in the analysis and award qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the right on which his claim is based was clearly established when the defendants … Thus, Loven is entitled to qualified immunity for the same reason as Nadeau.

State v. Saenz

967 S.W.2d 910 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 16, 1998

Although Texas courts use the terms "qualified” and "official" immunity interchangeably, see, e.g., Travis v. … for federal (qualified) and state (official) immunity tests.

Belanger v. City of Hartford

578 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 19, 2008

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … most favorable to the Plaintiff, could conclude that the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

640 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2011

The doctrine of 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 … She therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. A.

Alake v. City of Boston

40 Mass. App. Ct. 610 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 1996

child was a policy decision immune from suit, the decision by a school principal and teacher to send an injured handicapped child out to the playground unaccompanied was “clearly ministerial,” and therefore was not immunized … App. 4th 218, 227-228 (1995) (qualified immunity provision of statute did not abrogate general duty to supervise students); Doe v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

Ayotte v. Barnhart

973 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 24, 2013

immunity because they violated clearly established law by refusing to address the increase in padlock assaults in 2010. … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Klay v. Panetta

924 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 5 … at 34, and that is the teaching of Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 677 (stating that to determine “whether there is a violation of clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required”)