Case law

Moore v. City of Ferguson

213 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 4, 2016

“Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Amrine v. … Qualified immunity determinations are based on a two-part inquiry.

Michael-Ryan Kruger v. State of Nebraska

820 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2016

sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.... … Kruger’s proclaimed duty is not clearly established. There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here.

Leonhardt v. Akron

2019 Ohio 5223 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2019

clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. … We therefore conclude the trial court erred in finding Officers Sams and Smith were entitled to qualified immunity. {¶37} Dr.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Johnson v. City of Ecorse

137 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officers Smith and Herring plead the defense of qualified immunity. … The standard for that defense is that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly-established

Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City Of Pontiac

792 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 30, 1986

This is not a simple conclusion that the law is clearly established as is necessary with qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), test for applying qualified immunity requires a finding that the official conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

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

Batiste v. City of Beaumont

421 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2005

As the doctrine exists today, qualified immunity shields state officials from personal suits for acts in their official capacity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … The concept of conduct objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law is difficult to grasp.

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.

Bankston v. Pass Road Tire Center, Inc.

611 So. 2d 998 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

Officers, like Rogers and Smith, are not absolutely immune from liability for their discretionary actions; they can be held liable for their discretionary actions if their conduct does violate a clearly established constitutional … Even if the impoundment was at their own discretion, they would enjoy a qualified immunity.

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

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.”

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.

Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

806 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

immunity. 10 “[Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a … We therefore must determine whether Faul is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not violate clearly established law.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

517 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity, or “good faith” immunity, is an affirmative defense that a defendant state official may raise. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … Even if the Court found that Graduate Faculty status constitutes a protected property interest, this interest is not clearly established.

Prager v. LaFaver

103 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 16, 2000

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v. … Therefore, the issue before the court is whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation. B.

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.