Case law

Long v. Morris

485 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 3, 2007

Analysis Defendant seeks qualified immunity on plaintiffs claim of excessive force. … Ordinarily, in order for plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must

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.

Gene Bartholomew v. Commonwealth Of Pa

221 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 7, 2000

established at the time those warrants were executed. 15 We note in this connection that, for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the "clearly established constitutional right" should be set forth with specificity … Thus, while it was "clearly established" that warrants must be particular, the narrower and more appropriate question, i.e. whether it was clearly established that one has a constitutional right to be free from a search pursuant

Michael W. Showers v. Steven A. Spangler

182 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

"[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are `shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … entitled to qualified immunity.

Morin v. Caire

77 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1996

The Plaintiffs' Constitutional Claims: Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.10 … To determine if qualified immunity applies, this court follows a two-step process.

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity. 24 Therefore, the complaint states

McKinney v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

651 F. App'x 449 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2016

The resolution of the officers’ state-law qualified-official-immunity claims depends on the same issues of fact as their federal qualified-immunity claims. … The district court also held that since the officers may have violated McKinney’s clearly established constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified official immunity did not shield the officers from liability against the

Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education

323 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 2003

Public officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively … Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three *212 steps.

Harrell v. State

170 Wash. App. 386 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2012

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 . … and Richards enjoyed qualified immunity.

Chayo v. Kaladjian

844 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v. … Accord Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2739 (stating that test for qualified immunity “focuses on the objective legal reasonableness of an official’s acts” in light of “clearly established” legal rules); Ying Jing

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

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.

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

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.

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire

668 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 10, 2009

“cannot clearly establish a constitutional violation.”). … Because plaintiffs have failed to show that it was “clearly established” that applying Wisconsin’s disorderly house statute would *1168 be unconstitutional, I conclude that the individual defendants have qualified immunity

Jerauld ex rel. Robinson v. Kroger

353 S.W.3d 636 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 5, 2011

Thus, Kroger could also use the defense of qualified official immunity. … Clearly, his actions were of a discretionary nature. We believe the acts undertaken by Kroger were discretionary in nature and entitled him to qualified official immunity.

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Zavatsky v. Anderson

130 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 12, 2001

If such a deprivation has occurred, a defendant may establish a qualified immunity defense if “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … established constitutional right for the purpose of the court’s qualified immunity analysis.