Case law

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

790 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2011

The court, however, granted qualified immunity to MacPherson, stating that as of 2005, it was not clearly established that such use was unconstitutional. Id. at 833 . … Nor is Gee entitled to qualified immunity. The law as to extended detentions absent the indicia of probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.

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

Karen Deloach Collins, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Benny Deloach v. Matthew Schantz

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 26, 2023

See id. at 123 (1) (referring to “[t]he doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity”; Gilbert v. … established law” to that effect.

Stanfield v. City of Lima

244 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2017

Nevertheless, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second inquiry, whether qualified immunity shields an officer from suit, depends on whether, at the time of the incident, “the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

Baylor College of Medicine v. Tate

77 S.W.3d 467 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

on the issue of qualified immunity”); Austin Indep. … Clearly, this section applies to, among other things, assertions of immunity from suit. It does not apply to assertions of immunity from liability. Hence, it is necessary to determine the nature of Baylor’s claim.

Hermann v. Cook

240 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants bear the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense, but Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Defendants’ conduct violated a right so clearly established that a rea *630 sonable official would have

Steele v. City of Bemidji

242 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 2, 2003

This shield is known as qualified immunity. To determine whether the five above-named defendants have qualified immunity in this case, the Court makes a three-pronged inquiry. … To withstand a defense of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; that right must have been clearly established at the time of the violation

Carter v. Rhode Island

68 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

had been "clearly established" long before 1990. … immunity from suit "if the right asserted by the plaintiff was `clearly established' at the time of its alleged violation . . .

Scotto v. Almenas

143 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 5, 1998

Most executive officials receive qualified immunity, whereby "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified Immunity 28 The district court did not consider, and the parties have not briefed, whether or not Almenas, as alleged by Scotto, violated clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable

Cannon v. City & County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

Order of Dismissal at 8. ’ The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Bonnie Lee Hinchman v. Edwin L. Moore Jr. And Robert A. Dombrowski

312 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 2, 2002

Immunity The defendants maintain, as alternative defenses, that they are entitled to both absolute and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions will not incur liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Mitchell v. Coffey County Hospital

903 F. Supp. 1415 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 25, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs termination. … This exception to the rule that the qualified immunity defense fails where the defendant violated a clearly established right applies only rarely. Id.

Walton v. Ballard

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 30, 2018

established federal law.” … Johnson, 647 F.3d 87, 103 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The rule and analytical framework announced by the Supreme Court in Strickland ‘unquestionably qualifies as “clearly established” federal law under § 2254(d).’”

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.

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