Case law

Heather Burton v. Patricia Richmond

276 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

The Defendants have argued that qualified immunity bars the entirety of this lawsuit; specifically, contending at the time of the placement in 1985, the law was not clearly established that state caseworkers had a duty to … The Defendants ask this Court to reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and dismiss this action.

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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 known.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Kitchen Ex Rel. the Estate of Kitchen v. Dallas County

759 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2014

earliest possible stage in litigation.’” 8 The two-part inquiry into qualified immunity is first “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,” and second “whether the right was clearly established … As a general matter, moreover, this rule constituted clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity in this case.

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Moore v. Lightfoot

286 F. App'x 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, we find that Guyton’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Guyton took measures to protect Moore from danger. … Guyton is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, … As noted above, we have observed that at least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions resulting in the violation of a detainee’s clearly established

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.

Gooden v. Howard County Maryland

917 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 9, 1990

A The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was no clearly established law guiding their conduct.

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.

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

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.

Schneeweis v. Jacobs

771 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 29, 1991

Where qualified immunity is raised as an affirmative defense to liability in a § 1983 action, the court must first address the threshold issue of whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional … Schneeweis cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity as she cannot establish that her suspension violated any clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable school official would have known or that

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

Grancio v. De Vecchio

608 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2009

Grancio’s favor) clearly establish these Defendants’ direct involvement in the murder of Nicholas Grancio in concert with Scarpa their informant and, demonstrate unequivocally a violation of the by then clearly established … Qualified Immunity A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law

Kovats v. Rutgers

633 F. Supp. 1469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1986

The Third Circuit recently reviewed the ambiguities of Harlow’s “clearly established” requirement. In People of Three Mile Island v. … The state of the law was therefore clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ termination. Defendants should have related Perry and Roth to the instant situation. Hicks v.