Case law

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

James Dean v. County of Gage

807 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 7, 2015

It also denied the officers’ renewed motion for qualified immunity, which they cross-appeal. II. The officers claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that “(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

879 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

Qualified, Immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Dejesus v. Village of Pelham Manor

282 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 2003

“Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Wilson v. … established federal law to rebut the defense of qualified immunity.

Wyche v. City of Franklinton

837 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 1993

Caldwell is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that, in light of the clearly established principles governing the use of force to effect an arrest, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that … In Slattery , the Fourth Circuit elaborated upon the scope of qualified immunity: The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right.

Buchanan v. Metz

647 F. App'x 659 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2016

’s conduct (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, which (2) is clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known that the officer’s conduct violated that right. … Furthermore, any role that Metz may have had in advising Motley would be protected under qualified immunity, since we found that it is not clearly established that no reasonable officer would believe that a crime was being

Calloway v. Boro of Glassboro Department of Police

89 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

It is well-established that under the doctrine of qualified immunity: Government officials performing discretionary functions are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly … Under the circumstances of this case, I find that the law at the time of the allegedly discriminatory conduct was not clearly established and therefore, Best, Massari, and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity. c. § 1983

Gratz v. Bollinger

122 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2000

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … According to the Board, its actions must violate “clearly established legal principles” for its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated. (Id.) (emphasis in original).

Abbott v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

953 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 13, 1996

Qualified Immunity: Counts 9, 11, & 18 Defendant Miller asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity against each and every named plaintiff as to count 9, which alleges violations of Title III, and count 11, which … . *936 1996), in which the court summarily held that defendants have the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity at trial. Id. at 123 .

Anthony Zimmerman v. Jeffrey Doran

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials are shielded from civil liability “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which  a reasonable person  … We have held that “‘[c]onsulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity from being sued for false arrest,  but  it  goes  far  to  establish  qualified  immunity.

City of Brooksville v. Warner

533 S.W.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 17, 2017

Because the safe driving of a police vehicle is a ministerial act, Hause is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs negligent driving claim. … For this reason, and to ensure that governmental officials will exercise discretion when needed, our law allows qualified immunity from suit on the performance of discretionary acts.

Pollnow v. Glennon

757 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 12, 1985

violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The district court in that case concluded that, although the right to such a hearing under the due process clause had not been clearly established at the time of the termination, the failure to follow established state regulations

Cassels v. Stalder

342 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 20, 2004

First, it functions as a defense to liability when the actions allegedly taken by officials did not violate clearly established law. 32 If the law was not clearly established when officials acted, qualified immunity bars … the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and, (2) if so, whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mutter v. Sanders

611 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · May 4, 2009

immunity because their alleged conduct was not clearly established to be violative of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity (1) The Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the federal claims included in Count 1 of the complaint because it was not clearly established that Sanders violated the Plaintiffs

Van Wyhe v. Reisch

536 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 2008

Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 , 632 (8th Cir.2001): Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … .. whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Les Eckert and Aberdeen Insurance Services, Inc. v. Jose Montemayor, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas and Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 31, 2005

If we find an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we then consider if the right was “clearly established.” Id . … was “clearly established.”