Case law

Thompson v. City of Clio

765 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity a. … were clearly established in April and May of 1990.

Freeman v. Blair

862 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1989

See 793 F.2d at 171-73. 3 We turn to the issues of qualified immunity. … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims concerning defendants' failure to obtain a search warrant, and that none of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time "clearly established," or if "clearly established," was one that a "reasonable" person in the defendant's … violate clearly established rights."

Komlosi v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

64 F.3d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 7, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability if their conduct either “ ‘did not violate “clearly established rights” of which a reasonable person would have known, or ... it was

H. John Putnam v. Diane Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity. … is clearly established.

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

220 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that questions of fact exist as to whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity from liability provided by Social Services Law § 419. … Here, the X rays were clearly not medically indicated.

Merrill v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

219 W. Va. 151 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2006

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity because Appellants had failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that DHHR had violated any clearly established law.

Murray-Ruhl v. Shiawassee

246 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

Katz’s two-pronged qualified immunity analysis asks whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Garner provides a “clearly established” right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Did Jenkins’s Conduct Violate a Constitutional Right?

Thomas v. City of Annapolis

113 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1997

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” … The parties herein do not always clearly distinguish between immunity and privilege.

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

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.

Bingue v. Prunchak

512 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2008

Harris, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 1774 n. 2, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (“Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability _’ Thus, ... an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Drakeford v. County of Orange

213 F. App'x 542 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 14, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity analysis consists of two questions. … Thus an officer whose actions in fact violate clearly established law may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those actions are reasonable in light of the information the officer had at the time of the arrest

Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 4, 1995

To defeat defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that defendant state officers deprived plaintiff Thomas Lee of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right while acting under … Although the third right was not clearly established at the time of commission, a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity as is an individual state defendant. See Garner v.

Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68

234 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2017

The Board member Defendants are therefore entitled only to qualified immunity. … As discussed above, Williams has “adequately allegefd] the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” as she must to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of litigation. See Mitchell v.

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.

Potter v. City of Hanceville (In Re Potter)

354 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Nov 6, 2006

A plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by a showing that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … While there may have been a violation of a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff, the defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment as to qualified immunity if this right were not clearly established

Turner v. Martire

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

Estrella v. Menifee

275 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 2003

Qualified Immunity Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, defendants would still be dismissed from this lawsuit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Here, plaintiff fails the second and third prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.