Case law

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

Mladek v. Day

293 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 20, 2003

Mladek has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus overcoming the employee’s qualified immunity defense. I. Mr. Mladek’s Fourth Amendment Claims A. … Mladek overcomes his qualified immunity defense.

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery

428 F. Supp. 2d 1193 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 28, 2006

Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity bestows upon government officials a well-established “right” to avoid the burdens, costs and time of trial when the government official does not violate clearly-established constitutional norms.

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Cline v. Union County, Iowa

182 F. Supp. 2d 791 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Oct 30, 2001

elements essential to his claims, Defendants are immune from liability under Iowa Code § 760.4 (3) (2001), Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, and Cline has not established his section 1983 … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth

424 Mass. 176 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 3, 1997

Government officials are normally protected only by a qualified immunity, and those officials seeking an absolute exemption from personal liability must show that public policy requires an immunity of that scope. … In Chicopee Lions Club, supra at 251, we established that the scope of prosecutorial immunity under G. L. c. 12 is “at least as broad as under § 1983.” See Rodriques v.

Bell v. Marseilles Elementary School

160 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

“A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context … Board of Educ., 894 F.Supp. 386, 390 (D.Kan.1995) (the law regarding student strip searches is clearly established); Konop, 26 F.Supp.2d at 1196 (denying qualified immunity because “the holding in T.L.O. is not, in any way

Opalenik v. LaBrie

945 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 22, 2013

As Magistrate Judge Judith Dein explained: Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Bernier v. Trump

299 F. Supp. 3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The court held: Plaintiff's Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim on the second "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Estate of Alvarado ex rel. Alvarado v. Shavatt

673 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 18, 2017

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages unless (1) a plaintiff alleges facts that make out a constitutional violation, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time … Because we reverse on this ground, we do not address Shavatt’s arguments about whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Brassell v. Turner

468 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 15, 2006

A two-step approach is used to evaluate qualified immunity claims. … If the plaintiffs allegations could make out a constitutional violation, the court then asks “whether the right was clearly established — that is, whether ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Leopardi v. Township of Maple Shade

363 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2003

Potentially liable parties, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity claims involve a two-step analysis.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp.

172 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 24, 1999

The court similarly found that the private defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed them from the suit. Rumery and Johnson appeal, contesting the court's findings of qualified immunity. II. … We find the issue of qualified immunity is misplaced for two reasons.

Lopez v. San Luis Valley, Board of Cooperative Educational Services

977 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 17, 1997

the clearly established law. … Therefore, defendants Espinoza and Henderson did not violate any “clearly established” law in 1994 and 1995, and they are entitled to summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity.

Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual Capacity

477 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Robinson has asserted the defense of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

24 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity For much the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 50-51 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct

FTW REVOCABLE TRUST v. Young

151 P.3d 811 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2007

immunity because there exists no law giving Linda a clearly-established right to renew Stephen's mooring permit. … question of qualified immunity.