Case law

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

Brigitte Wright v. Tony E. Sims

417 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 8, 2005

Qualified Immunity “Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights of which … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Santangelo v. State

101 A.D.2d 20 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 12, 1984

In any event, even if a rule of qualified immunity were to be applied here, we would affirm. … them only qualified immunity; see, also, Anderson v New York State Div. of Parole ( 546 F Supp 816 ) granting absolute immunity (see discussion, p 28).

Ellsworth v. City of Lansing

34 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 16, 1998

In the absence of such clearly established law existing at the time of the incidents at issue in this case, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Regardless, however, such a right unquestionably was not clearly established in 1997. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant

142 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 1998

LaLone and Officer Shell are entitled to qualified immunity. Police officers are afforded qualified immunity for their discretionary functions, Pierson v. … "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."

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.

Hazel L. Wilson v. Steve Northcutt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Malvern, Arkansas, City of Malvern, Arkansas

441 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 21, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Northcutt is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Towing the Café Fish.

Pinnock v. City of New Haven

553 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 14, 2008

“If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant. … Even if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action at issue

Cavanaugh v. Doherty

243 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1998

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As such, accepting plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss (see, McEvoy v Spencer, supra, at 95), we conclude that defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity.

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Public Service Commission

985 S.W.2d 793 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1998

Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Respondent argues that even if the facts alleged are true, Respondent did not violate any clearly established right of Appellant.

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.

Christopher Cremeans v. William Wrenn, Christopher Kench, Michael Zenk, Jon Fouts, and Nichole Kipphut

2019 DNH 060 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2019

capacities are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established in 2017. … Qualified immunity shields individual officers from claims for damages “‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

Hilliard v. City And County Of Denver

930 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

Sec. 25-1-310 (1989), had given rise to this constitutional violation. 4 The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the law controlling their actions was not clearly established, and that they therefore had qualified immunity … Such broad, nonspecific allegations are insufficient to defeat the defendants' claim to qualified immunity.

Traversa v. Ford

718 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Assuming arguendo that Traversa stated viable claims under § 1983 and § 1985, the Defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation … Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation of Traversa’s Complaint. 4.

S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder

929 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … Browder is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. D.

Frazier v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established” at the time of the violation. 3 It is hard to understand why the Defendants waited until two years after this lawsuit was filed to raise the issue of qualified immunity.

Douglas Rush v. Barbara Perryman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush's rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush's right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Leiser v. Moore

903 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … We can resolve this appeal by considering only the clearly-established prong of the qualified- immunity defense. See Bowling v.

Molina-Gomes v. Welinski

676 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Hope v. … The test for whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Tidwell v. City & County of Denver

62 P.3d 1020 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2002

vehicle operator or the governmental entity qualifies for immunity. … Therefore, he was not required to use his lights and sirens to qualify for immunity under the GIA.