Case law

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that "[t]he Supreme Court's qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … These cases establish no law clearly and fail to overcome defendants' qualified immunity. 70 As I stated earlier, see supra, until the Supreme Court's decision in Brower, the intentional, successful use of physical force-

District Council 20, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. District of Columbia

150 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2001

For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is “clearly established” if “the contours of that right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … immunity as to these claims which have not been clearly established in this or any other circuit.

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.

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.”

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.

Joseph v. Donahue

392 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, D. Maine · May 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action *984 unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts shown by the plaintiff establish "(1) that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the

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.

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 .

Ager v. Office of Director of Regulation

1 Am. Tribal Law 380 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Oct 30, 1997

It is well established that Indian tribes possess the “common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers”, Santa Clara, Pueblo v. … 502 of Article V of M.T.O. 95-4 specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the Tribe, the Authority or the Tribe’s other enterprises

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.”

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

Meadours Ex Rel. Estate of Meadours v. Ermel

483 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability "‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which … Second, we determine whether the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable in light of "clearly established" law at the time of the alleged violation. Goodson v.

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.

Greenaway v. County of Nassau

97 F. Supp. 3d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at 289 . … .-, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (noting that courts evaluating qualified immunity must “draw[] inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the

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.

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.

City of Brooksville v. Warner

533 S.W.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 17, 2017

Because the safe driving of a police vehicle is a ministerial act, Hause is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs negligent driving claim. … For this reason, and to ensure that governmental officials will exercise discretion when needed, our law allows qualified immunity from suit on the performance of discretionary acts.

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

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

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