Case law

Marx v. Gumbinner

716 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 19, 1989

Qualified Immunity Even if probable cause did not exist, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because those Defendants reasonably believed such probable cause existed. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s arrest. C.

Chagnon v. Bell

468 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1979

These holdings clarify the scope of acts for which officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In view of the state of the law at the time defendants acted, it is clear that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated by defendants were anything but “clearly established.”

Duke v. Hamil

997 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 2014

Did Defendant Hamil Violate a Clearly Established Constitutional Right? … Even if the Court concluded that Hamil did violate Plaintiffs First Amend-, ment rights, Hamil would still be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Kaur v. Dual Arch International

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2024

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by Kachlon, we conclude that the immunity provided by section 2924, subdivision (d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47, subdivision (c). … The malice required to defeat section 47 qualified immunity is “ ‘actual malice.’ ” (Taus, at p. 721.; King v. U.S.

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.

Pierce v. Gilchrist

359 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2004

Clearly Established Law When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, after identifying the constitutional right allegedly violated, courts must determine whether the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of … In response to defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court analyzed whether the law prohibiting such conduct was clearly established as of January 8, 1986, the day of the alleged arrest. Id. at 581.

DeVries v. State

221 Ariz. 201 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Mar 31, 2009

or thwarting established public policy. … Here, the trial court determined that qualified immunity applied if the jury found that the factual prerequisites under A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(7) were established, thereby allowing the jury to determine only the disputed facts

Nicole MacTaggart and Others / Glenn Wilder and Others / Irene Ray and Others / Anne Weiss and Others / Dianne L. Depalma and Others / Benjamin Brophy and Others / Robert Johnson and Others / Patricia Beckett and Others / Mary D. Lombardi

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 17, 2024

Scope of the UAGA Qualified Immunity Provision. … of the statutory qualified immunity was an affirmative defense.

Ruegsegger v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF CTY. COM'RS

197 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claims One, Two, Three and Four because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20 … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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).

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.

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.

Schroeder v. Kaplan

60 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where the right which the officials have allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred such that a reasonable … the district court properly granted defendants qualified immunity on this claim.

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Washington v. Whitaker

317 S.C. 108 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Dec 19, 1994

Officer Whitaker — Qualified Immunity Officer Whitaker contends he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We disagree. … We affirm the denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity. D.

Gulledge v. Smart

691 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 29, 1988

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court must focus on the particular facts involved in the alleged deprivation and whether the law at the time of the alleged deprivation was “clearly established … to qualified immunity as to that claim.