Case law

M.P., a Minor v. Monroe Local Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2021

"An official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (Qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Verret v. Alabama Department of Mental Health

511 F. Supp. 2d 1166 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 20, 2007

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Consequently, this Court will follow the binding precedent established by Davis and hold that Waters’ violation of policy 20-16 does not forfeit her right to qualified immunity. b.

Ellison v. Hobbs

334 F. Supp. 3d 1328 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2018

"In evaluating a government actor's entitlement to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has developed an objective-reasonableness test wherein 'the official's actions must be evaluated against "clearly established law," … Second, we determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of alleged conduct.

Charles Bella v. Lee Chamberlain and Curtis Meyers

24 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 20, 1994

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The very purpose of qualified immunity is to "weed out” suits that fail to assert the violation of a clearly established constitutional right "without requiring a defendant ... to engage in expensive and time consuming preparation

Jodie Smook v. Minnehaha County

457 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

a violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The court further held that Banbury and Cheever were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was “clearly established for several years” prior to the time of the alleged violations that the Fourth Amendment prohibited

Barnes v. County of Placer

654 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to lawsuits against governmental officials arising out of the performance of their duties. … without first obtaining a warrant and keep them in custody until the Placer County Juvenile Court ordered their release did not violate clearly established law.

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Forest v. Pawtucket Police Department

290 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 22, 2003

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established … If the court finds the parties’ submissions demonstrate a constitutional violation, the next step is to determine whether the right was clearly established. Id.

Matthew Grab v. Columbia Borough

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 21, 2023

Grab and Grab’s “right not to be handcuffed was clearly established.” … But the District Court did not resolve the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, concluding instead that the right was not “clearly established.” See Pearson v.

Stephen Hanes v. Thomas Zurick

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

the court indicated that the right was clearly established. … was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Federal courts recognize a qualified immunity for public officials, which is analogous although not identical to our official immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Glaspie v. Mahoney

973 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1997

from constitutional tort liability; and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 10 See Defts.’ … DISCUSSION Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has clearly defined those situations where government officials enjoy qualified immunity in performing discretionary functions: [T]he[se] defendants enjoy a qualified immunity

Buchanan v. Metz

6 F. Supp. 3d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 15, 2014

Bogle, 92 Fed.Appx. 165, 169 (6th Cir.2004) (“Although a request for monetary damages alone may not suffice to establish the requisite notice, the assertion of a qualified-immunity defense (even a contingent qualified-immunity … These functions clearly relate to the decision to prosecute, to which absolute immunity absolutely applies.

State of New Jersey v. C.C.W.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2025

However, to qualify for the OPA immunity, a defendant must also establish that the acute condition "result[ed] from the consumption or use of a [CDS]." Ibid. … The definition is comprised of three elements, all of which must be established to qualify for immunity: (1) the person must exhibit an "acute condition[,]" (2) "the acute condition must be 'resulting from the consumption

Estate of Gilliam Ex Rel. Waldroup v. City of Prattville

667 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 26, 2009

Therefore, if the violated right was not clearly established under contemporary law, qualified immunity still applies. Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . *1288 2. … A constitutional right is clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts that clearly establishes the right; (2) a broad statement of principle in the Constitution

Cartwright Ex Rel. Estate of Cartwright v. City of Marine

336 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

No. 02-1728 qualified immunity. … Then, the 295, 299 (6th cir. 1999) (noting that as long as “a defendant court must discern whether the right is so “clearly seeking qualified immunity [is] willing to concede to the facts established” that a “reasonable

Lewis v. McCracken

782 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 21, 2011

Qualified Immunity We turn next to the issue of qualified immunity protections, if any, available to Chief McCracken. … Qualified immunity shields McCracken from individual liability under Section 1983 for actions taken by him in the course of his performance of his discretionary functions, unless his conduct violated clearly established statutory

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski, in Their Individual Capacities

164 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

Ill Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … That takes us to the second part of the immunity inquiry: whether the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question.

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

250 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2001

established right. … violated established law.

Chivas v. Koehler

182 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1990

Thus, we find he would qualify under Ross for absolute immunity. … The motion can only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.