Case law

Christensen v. Quinn

45 F. Supp. 3d 1043 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 10, 2014

Because the reconstructed affidavit did not establish probable cause, Quinn is not entitled to qualified immunity on that basis. *1081 Quinn argues that she relied on the advice of Landeen-Hoeke, which should establish that … Even if the court assumes that Landeen-Hoeke is only entitled to qualified immunity for those acts, Christensen would still have the burden of showing that the act in question violated a clearly established constitutional

Hemmah v. City of Red Wing

592 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour 2 seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they are protected by qualified immunity. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary … Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir.2008), the Court concludes that Hemmah’s right was not clearly established in this case and that, consequently, Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour are entitled to qualified immunity.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Glenda Pierson v. Linda Thomas as Personal Representative for the Estate of Damon Hollimon, and Ashley Dominique Hollimon

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Apr 19, 2007

from suit, and Pierson's motion for summary judgment asserted qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages under section 1983, provided the official's conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional

Batten v. Gomez

324 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 24, 2003

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … We have reviewed this claim and agree with the district court that Shuster and Gomez are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Shuster and Gomez violated no clearly established right held by Brittany.

Farrelly v. City of Concord

2012 DNH 166 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 1, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, I(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce. … Even s o , the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Hicks v. City Of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

immunity. 31 Clearly, the threat to fire Mr. … Diffey's lone vote. 72 The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks' clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231

138 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 6, 2015

’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the. official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 62 Accordingly, the. qualified immunity defense must be resolved “at the … Defendants are not .entitled to qualified immunity on Gilhaus’ due process property interest claim because the facts as alleged demonstrate that Defendants violated Gilhaus’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … ‘clearly established’ at the. time [the action] was taken.”)

Reed v. Kemper

673 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

In this court Reed contends that Kemper is not entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that Turner clearly establishes that the rationale articulated in Kemper’s affidavit is not related to peno-logical objectives. … Michelle Bones, however, is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. Complaint examiners follow the law so long as they do their job in examining complaints in good faith.

Bryson v. Gonzales

534 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 28, 2008

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … The only issues that properly belong in an interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity are the existence of a constitutional violation and whether it was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Habiger v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 23, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official *717 from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is clearly established if a reasonable official would understand that his or her conduct violates that particular right because the contours of the right are sufficiently clear.

Dudley v. Angel

209 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. … The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Hollowell v. Gravett

703 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 19, 1988

In the alternative, Givens claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity in that he was not violating clearly established law. In Imbler v. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Vega, Alfredo v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 24, 2020

Summary judgment to defendants would be required under the doctrine of qualified immunity. See D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. … Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (Government officials entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability in lawsuit unless conduct violated federal statutory or constitutional right and unlawfulness of conduct was “clearly established

Parks v. City of Brewer

56 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity To assess a claim of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, and (ii) whether a reasonable, similarly situated defendant … When the existence of a constitutional right rests solely on the outcome of a balancing test, many courts have determined that the right generally is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II 33 "[P]ublic officials . . . are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Garson v. Hendlin

141 A.D.2d 55 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 1988

While it is true that the cloak of a qualified immunity may also serve to protect commentary of dubious probative worth, the policy interests furthered by recognition of the privilege serve as a counterweight to any incidental … The plaintiff has not established otherwise.

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 15, 2006

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court in the state in which the case arose provide the case law capable of clearly establishing the boundaries of rights in the qualified immunity … Once these elements have been satisfactorily demonstrated, “there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense” because “the use of force ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ is clearly established to be a violation