Case law

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration

968 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 2012

Chamizo finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish any violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 5-15.) … In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Szuch v. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.

2016 Ohio 620 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2016

Nuisance may be further divided into “absolute” and “qualified.” … . {¶ 54} Alternatively, appellants argue that the operation of the range above the noise regulations is evidence of negligence sufficient to establish a qualified nuisance.

Jiménez-González v. Alvarez-Rubio

683 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 8, 2010

The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials from civil suits as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The second “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has two aspects. Id. One aspect focuses on “the clarity of the law at the time of the alleged civil rights violation.” Id.

Hunt v. Massi

5 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 25, 2014

Overview of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which … The Right was Clearly Established.

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services

346 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

The Third Circuit has discussed qualified immunity in the following manner and terms: A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “[t]he contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable … In determining whether qualified immunity is applicable, the Court must first determine for the purposes of the motion if, in fact, a constitutional right was violated, and second, if that right was “clearly established”

Magro v. City of Vineland

148 N.J. Super. 34 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1977

The undisputed facts establish that the nature of the lands herein as rural, undeveloped and unimproved, and the use thereof by plaintiff for swimming qualify to bring into play the immunity granted by the statute, as construed … The statute grants immunity to a landowner under the facts herein — an immunity equally available to a public entity and a private individual or corporation. Affirmed.

Riley v. City of Montgomery, AL

104 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1997

Accordingly, Wooten is entitled to no immunity for such claims. … The Grant of Summary Judgment to City Defendants Though the district court's opinion largely speaks in terms of qualified immunity, the district court did conclude, in its summary judgment order, that no constitutional

Way v. Shawnee Township

192 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue Truesdale is entitled to qualified immunity. *881 Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability. Mitchell v. … was “clearly established” when he or she did so.

City of Alamo v. Holton

934 S.W.2d 833 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 19, 1996

The City of Alamo appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The terms "qualified immunity,” "official immunity," "quasi-judicial immunity,” "discretionary immunity” and "good faith immunity” refer to affirmative defenses available to governmental employees sued in their individual

Johnson v. City of Detroit

944 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability under section 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the officer defendants cannot claim qualified immunity for their conduct on April 11, 1994 on the grounds that the right asserted in Johnson’s complaint is not clearly established.

Furnace v. Oklahoma Corp. Commission

51 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

clearly established when the violation occurred.” … Once the magistrate judge determined that the law was not clearly established, Johnson was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Dowling v. Hannigan

995 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1998

Defendant asserts that he is also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields defendant from pecuniary lability unless he violated “clearly established” constitutional or statutory norms. … Summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Lt.

Anthony v. Burkhart

28 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 1998

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v.

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

Paul Knox v. Kenneth L. McGinnis and Thomas Roth

998 F.2d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1993

According to Knox, the qualified immunity defense “is available to protect defendant[s] only as far as case law establishes that th[e] use is constitutional. Beyond these limits, qualified immunity does not apply.” … Knox misunderstands the .qualified immunity doctrine. The question is not whether the conduct is clearly constitutional, but whether it is clearly unconstitutional.

Levine v. Roebuck

550 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

The court then granted Youngs qualified immunity because “the law of the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established at the time of [her] actions.” In Saucier v. … But that proposition was not clearly established by those cases, or by any other.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Estrada ex rel. Estate of Estrada v. Cook

166 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2015

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.”