Case law

Zavatsky v. Anderson

130 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 12, 2001

If such a deprivation has occurred, a defendant may establish a qualified immunity defense if “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … established constitutional right for the purpose of the court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Stephens v. City of Akron

729 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 2010

Clearly Established Inquiry The law clearly establishes that an officer may not use deadly force to seize an unarmed suspect. … on the issue of qualified immunity.

Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District

428 F.3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2005

Analysis of Qualified Immunity The individual defendants also raise a qualified immunity defense as a basis for their Rule 12(b)(6) motion. … Evans-Marshall’s claim also satisfies the second prong of qualified immunity, that “the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

983 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

the defendants therefore had qualified immunity from suit. … protected by qualified immunity.

Jensen v. Lane County

222 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

Robbins violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Robbins’ determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law.”

Powers v. Northside Independent School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

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.

James Harold Peterson Paula Peterson v. City of Plymouth Michael Ridgley David Lindman Mark Bevins

60 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

If the officers did not have probable cause, a second inquiry is necessary to determine whether the officers are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. 6 The officers *474 are immune from liability if, in light of clearly … In light of this clearly established law, Officer Ridgley did not act in an objectively reasonable manner.

Billie M. Ireland v. Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, and Richard D. Kuhn

113 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

Accordingly, because Meiers’s actions in swearing to the complaint were objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law, we hold that Meiers is entitled to qualified immunity under the Malley formulation. … immunity because his involvement was objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mary Dearmon v. Garrett Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id. … P. 41 and state law did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Taylor v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human resources

237 W. Va. 549 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2016

Therefore, to the extent that petitioners have established sufficient evidence that the challenged employment actions were a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable … ’ claims are not barred by qualified immunity.

Colston v. Barnhart

130 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

Disputes over the application of the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry are separable from the merits of a controversy because “‘[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant … The semantic switch from discussing the typical qualified-immunity issue of “clearly established law” to a hypothetical (in Behrens) issue of “objective legal reasonableness” creates many of the problems that are now plaguing

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

Cox v. Roskelley

359 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2004

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, without making any qualified immunity argument. … The second summary judgment motion asserted, for the first time, a qualified immunity defense.

Diane M. Wilson v. Ugo Formigoni, Carlos Deeb and Bruce Wilosinski

42 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1994

The court found, however, that it was not clearly established that Youngberg applied to those voluntary patients who were in reality committed involuntarily. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 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.

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.