Case law

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.

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.

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”

Tungwarara v. United States

400 F. Supp. 2d 1213 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 13, 2005

The defense 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 a reasonable … On the uncontested facts of the search here, however, Ludwigs is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment Right To Equal Protection Was Not Clearly Established In 2002.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cannon v. City and County of Denver

998 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 1993

The court found that the officers did not act in violation of clearly established law. It therefore concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … established rights as to be entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

Onofre T. Serrano v. S.W. Francis

345 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2003

Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, we now move to our analysis of qualified immunity. 3.

Massie v. Cobb County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1302 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2017

Accordingly, even if Gallimore’s conduct did violate Massie’s Fourth Amendment rights, that, violation did not run afoul of clearly established law, and Gallimore is entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v. … In' response, Massie argues in a cursory fashion that “the record in this case clearly establishes that ... Gallimore acted with actual malice.” [44] at 19. ...

Moreland v. Dorsey

230 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 11, 2002

Even if the court finds that a public official violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, the official is entitled to qualified immunity if that particular right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged … Thus, the determination of defendants’ qualified immunity defense turns on whether a clearly established right was violated by their conduct.

El Bey v. Roop

530 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages stemming from their performance of discretionary functions so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”

Remo Benigni, Dba the Silver Fox v. City of Hemet Roger Miller Jesse Pease Scott Jernigan

879 F.2d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY This question is properly before the court because the individual defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity and subsequently offered it as a ground for judgment NOV. … Thus we conclude that any error in the qualified immunity instruction was harmless.

Olzinski v. MacIona

714 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 7, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on the claims for money damages because they “could not have reasonably known that their conduct violated any well established … Once the issue of qualified immunity is properly injected into a case by a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the allegedly “clearly established” constitutional right

Delatte v. Genovese

228 So. 2d 252 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1969

Defendant asserted the judicial immunity conferred by Louisiana Constitution Art. VII, Secs. 70, 71 and 72, and the qualified personal immunity provided pursuant to LSA-R.S. 33 .T555 and LSA-R.S. 28:52. … In Burns, defendant asserted absolute immunity under La.Const. Art. VII, Secs. 70, 71 and 72, and also claimed qualified or conditional immunity.