Case law

Abiff v. Slaton

806 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 29, 1992

Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to these Defendants in their individual capacities. b) Qualified immunity Defendants have both (1) raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and (2) argued … In his reply, Plaintiff, in an effort to avoid these immunity defenses, asserts that “since Plaintiffs action is an official-capacity-lawsuit the Defendants qualified immunity defense is not available in this case.”

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.

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Lucas v. Swain County Board of Education

154 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Both affidavits established the Trust is not authorized and licensed to execute insurance contracts in this State and that it is not considered a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance. … Moreover, defendant established through three affidavits from Hale, Earley and Dunlap that the Trust is neither a licensed and authorized insurer, nor a qualified insurer as determined by the Department.

Mendez v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2024

violated his Fourth Amendment right or that they violated a clearly established right. … Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 234 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding that case that was decided four months after events in question could not clearly establish any rights for the purposes of qualified immunity); Reynolds v.

Gunter v. Morrison

497 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

The question is whether this right was clearly established. … This right was clearly established. See, e.g., Zar v. S.D.

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

Winfield v. Bass

67 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 25, 1995

Addressing the qualified immunity defense, the court opined that the constitutional right concededly implicated by Winfield’s factual assertions in his complaint and responsive affidavit was “clearly established” at the time … Here, as indicated, the district court expressly ruled in its memorandum opinion that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the critical time.

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

Tina Ewell v. Eric Toney

853 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 9, 1991

If a plaintiff could conceive of a viable federal legislative or constitutional claim based upon the facts you have stated, only qualified immunity would exist for individual officers involved, and the actual political subdivisions … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), (stating that test of qualified immunity for individual officers turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established

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.

Beverly Thompson v. David E. Wagner and Keith Gardner

319 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2003

Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … light of the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and clearly established law, Mrs.

Schneider v. Simonini

314 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 1998

The trial judge dismissed the case against Post based on qualified immunity. … The test is whether the conduct involved was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow, supra, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Murchison v. County of Tehama

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2021

violated clearly established law. … Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1433, fn. 6), and “we may consider such decisions when determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis

Durrant v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

96 Conn. App. 456 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 11, 2006

A municipal employee has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable for tortious conduct if he subjects an identifiable person to imminent harm. Burns v. … To succeed in her claim of liability, therefore, the plaintiff must fall within one of the exceptions to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts.

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

Hansen v. California Department of Corrections

920 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 25, 1996

If, rationally, what the state of the law was is a close question, the law cannot be deemed “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity. … California Statutory Immunity California has no qualified immunity law similar to federal qualified immunity.

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

654 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the event. … Ct. at 2083 (holding that an official is not entitled to qualified immunity where “every reasonable official” would have understood that he was violating a clearly established right (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks