Case law

Heyne v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

686 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 3, 2009

Defendants argue that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of Christian Heyne, that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Defendant Metro cannot be liable because … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Robin Hill v. Kevin McKinley

311 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

Although we conclude that the facts establish a constitutional violation, we believe the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their actions did not violate clearly established law. … Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 759-60 , 107 S.Ct. 2672 , 96 L.Ed.2d 654 (1987) (qualified immunity dismissal of § 1983 claim where constitutional violation found but right was not clearly established precludes § 1988 award of attorney

Losch v. Borough of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. Thus, the Court held in Procunier v. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail,” unless the defendant “claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Johnson v. Wright

423 F. Supp. 2d 1242 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2005

Case law need not arise out of factually identical situations to clearly establish law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Id. at 1351 . … Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that this legal tenant is “clearly established” for purposes of addressing qualified immunity claims by public officials. See, e.g., Id.; Herren v.

Mitchell v. Street

415 F. Supp. 2d 490 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Finally, Defendant Mayor Street asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary functions.” Lodato v. … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

683 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1987

The Court now briefly elaborates on the claims of qualified immunity. … In Harlow the Supreme Court recognized that governmental officials may be entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Apffel v. Huddleston

50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Utah · May 27, 1999

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity spares Defendants the burden of proceeding with the litigation unless Plaintiff can show that Defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Williams v. Crosby

43 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Williams is a constitutional violation, it was not clearly established under Circuit precedent in September 2012. R. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

Hartwell v. City of Montgomery, AL

487 F. Supp. 2d 1313 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 10, 2007

Under the qualified-immunity rule, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … to qualified immunity.

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

William Hurt v. Matthew Wise

880 F.3d 831 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

of  clearly  established  law.  … Even if, in hindsight, it appears that probable cause  was lacking, qualified immunity is still available if the arrest‐ ing officers “reasonabl[y] … could have believed the arrest to  be  lawful,  in  light  of  clearly 

Kirkland Ex Rel. Jones v. Greene County Board of Education

347 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2003

Notwithstanding that his actual conduct may have violated the Constitution, Morrow agues that at the time of the incident the right to be free from corporal punishment was not clearly established. … Thus, the qualified immunity question turns on whether Morrow’s actions as described by Kirkland violated these principles.

Baumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind

425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006

. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Huddleston v. Maurry

841 S.W.2d 24 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 2, 1992

To establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a movant must show that: 1. he pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; 2. his position with the government enjoys a quasi-judicial status; 3. he was … In responding to an emergency they still were required to obey the safety standards established in article 6701d. We conclude that the officers have not established, as a matter of law, a basis for qualified immunity.

Bollinger v. Oregon

172 F. App'x 770 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2006

Under the law of the case doctrine in our circuit, subsequent proceedings should follow the law of the case established in a previous appellate decision unless: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would … Since, in the posture presented to us, this qualified immunity question is a purely legal one, and Bollinger I held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, that holding controls this appeal as law of

Baddour, Inc. And Bmc Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. United States of America, Michael E. Posey

802 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1986

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (emphasis added). … In this case and on these facts the plaintiff clearly has not done so. 3 Were Baddour’s failure to overcome Posey’s qualified immunity defense not enough, the damages suit against Posey could have been dismissed for failure

Bennett v. Coffman

178 W. Va. 500 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1987

I It has long been established that a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from an assessment of damages against him in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if he acted with a reasonable and good faith belief that … The appellees in this case are therefore immune from damages unless they acted contrary to clearly established law as it existed at the time they entered Mr.

Krug v. Lutz

329 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2003

Qualified Immunity Krug, for his part, challenges the district court’s conclusion that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from his claim for damages. … We therefore move on: [T]he next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.