Case law

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Whether Weydert and Coffey are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 6 1. Grounds for Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that MUAs are legal. … Weydert and Coffey are “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show” their actions *1115 violated the Constitution. Pearson v.

Rieck v. Jensen

651 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 30, 2011

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … In this case we may review the district court’s denial of Jensen’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because, as we shall see, Jensen’s entitlement to qualified immunity is based on undisputed facts

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

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

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.

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.

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

DONNA SMITHERS v. TA'TANISHA TWEEDY

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 24, 2025

“The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.” (Citation omitted.) Siegrist v. Herhold, 365 Ga. … “Under Georgia law, official or qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.

Erskine v. Commissioner of Corrections

682 A.2d 681 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 15, 1996

In their answer, the defendants raised the affirmative defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity, M.R.Civ.P. 8(c). … Despite their knowledge of Robinson’s violent nature, the defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for purposes of section 1983 liability.

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.

Chatman v. Ft. Lauderdale Police Department

688 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2016

to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … ANALYSIS On appeal, Deputy Wengert does not argue that Chatman’s right to be free from a prolonged dog bite after surrender was not clearly established under federal law.

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

74 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff … at all' before reaching the possibly unnecessary question of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation of a "clearly established' right."). 5  To be clearly established, the

OONA R.-S. BY KATE S. v. Santa Rosa City Schools

890 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 1995

If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a qualified immunity claim at this stage in a section 1983 action, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established right secured by federal statutory or constitutional law.

Kyle Rusness v. Becker County, Minnesota

31 F.4th 606 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a -10- reasonable person would … Qualified immunity analysis involves two inquiries: (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier v.

Jarovits v. Monroe County Children & Youth Services

345 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 21, 2009

The Bayer Court held that “under the ‘clearly established’ prong of the Saucier test, defendants should be afforded qualified immunity with respect to [the plaintiffs’ procedural due process] claim.” … qualified immunity.

Goff v. Bise

173 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 6, 1999

the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated [the] plaintiff's clearly established right. 14 Habiger … Both of these claims allege violations of constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the August 12 arrest. See Guite v.

Wright v. Montgomery County

215 F.3d 367 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 9, 2000

Wright argues that the Appellants’ qualified immunity claims are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal because the District Court’s December 18, 1998, Memorandum and Order “sets forth the clearly established right which … Holding as we do that Wright has alleged the violation of a clearly established right, we must also hold that the Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. IV.

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.

Shaw v. Stroud

13 F.3d 791 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 6, 1994

Government officials have qualified immunity for discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Stroud Because of the nature of § 1983 supervisory liability, the plaintiffs must make several separate showings to demonstrate that Stroud lacked qualified immunity: (1) it was “clearly established” at the time of Morris