Case law

Cassels v. Stalder

342 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 20, 2004

First, it functions as a defense to liability when the actions allegedly taken by officials did not violate clearly established law. 32 If the law was not clearly established when officials acted, qualified immunity bars … the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of

Jackson v. Jackson County

956 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 10, 1995

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, we determine whether the plaintiff has allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Accordingly, [u]n-less the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Pearlie Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky.

25 F.4th 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 8, 2022

Even so, our caselaw did not clearly establish that the Officers acted unconstitutionally when using this force. Since we may address the two-part qualified-immunity test in either order, see Pearson v. … This conclusion leads to the second qualified-immunity question: Even under Gambrel’s version of events, would Ashurst’s shooting violate clearly established law?

Jones v. Banks

892 F. Supp. 988 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Banks’ second argument, that he is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, is equally unavailing. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Min Li v. Qi Jiang

38 F. Supp. 3d 870 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 13, 2014

Defendants assert that Li has failed to show that the right in question was “clearly established” as required to defeat a qualified immunity defense. ECF No. 4 at 12. … The qualified immunity defense “shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions [ ] insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Commonwealth v. Scott

503 Pa. 624 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 1983

When the Commonwealth refused to grant immunity, the trial court found that although it did not have the power to grant judicial immunity to Hill, a new trial was warranted based on the contents of the unsworn post-trial … When dissecting a double hearsay statement, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Derrick Maye v. Paul Klee

915 F.3d 1076 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 14, 2019

We review orders denying qualified immunity de novo, Stoudemire v. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to look to whether the officials’ acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bapat v. Connecticut Department of Health Services

815 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 29, 1992

Even where the contours of the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, “the defendant may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his … immunity is whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Rich v. Erie County Department of Human Resources

106 Ohio App. 3d 88 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified immunity may not be asserted as a defense to an action alleging the failure of a public official to perform ministerial acts. (Scot Lad Foods, Inc. v. … It draws a distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties, and between absolute and qualified immunity.

Mowbray v. Kozlowski

724 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 25, 1989

Under Harlow , state officials are protected by qualified immunity if the conduct complained of by the plaintiffs "did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … Qualified immunity is " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

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.

MLADEK v. Day

320 F. Supp. 2d 1373 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 2004

Defendant Day is immune from suit in his individual capacity, unless he violated “ ‘clearly established law,’ which consists of statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person should have known.” Hutton v. … Mladek did not violate any clearly established constitutional right.

Bradway v. Town of Southampton

826 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds with respect to the medical indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Vacca v. Barletta

753 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 12, 1990

Qualified Immunity Government officials who are not granted absolute immunity are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred....

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

The qualified immunity defense “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the

Linda A. Nelson, Paul R. Nelson, Evelyn Philbert, Laura Moore, and Charles Moore v. Denise Balazic, Dick Moore, and Bill Duncan

802 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Having held that Balazic is only entitled to qualified immunity we must now determine whether her conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even assuming arguendo that a constitutional right was violated, and we specifically do not address this issue, Balazic should be immune because such right was not clearly established at that time. See Martinez.

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault

256 U.S. 554 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 1, 1921

The company is clearly, not answerable in the present action if the ordinary principles of common-law liability are to. be applied. … Whatever name be applied, the element of punishment clearly predominates and Congress has not given its consent that suits of this character be brought against the United' States.

Bernstein v. United States

990 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 10, 1997

Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate, clearly established statutory or constitutional