Case 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Collier v. Montgomery

569 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2009

The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.2 In Saucier 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.

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.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of "clearly established" law. … "clearly established" law.

Guerra v. Sutton

783 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 1986

IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS A federal officer is entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of duty unless the officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” law. Harlow v. … We construe the district court’s dismissal of the FTCA claim as based on the same qualified immunity grounds.

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.

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

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

Ralph Rogers v. Michael Fair

902 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 30, 1990

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. … concerning qualified immunity.

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

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.