Case law

Cody v. Dane County

242 Wis. 2d 173 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Jan 25, 2001

In this regard, Cody misapprehends the concept of qualified immunity in the § 1983 context. … The determinative legal question regarding qualified immunity is not whether Norwick reasonably believed his actions were lawful, but whether the law regarding Cody's rights was clearly established, such that "a reasonably

Gonzalez Perez v. Gomez Aguila

312 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 7, 2004

could not have believed that they were violating such clearly established constitutional rights. … complains violated clearly established law.”

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

Jose Padilla v. John Yoo

678 F.3d 748 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2012

YOO tiffs’ RFRA claims on the basis of qualified immunity, hold- ing that RFRA’s application “to the military detention setting” was not clearly established at the time of the alleged viola- tions. Id. at 560. … YOO Yoo is entitled to qualified immunity, however, because it was not clearly established in 2001-03 that the treatment to which Padilla says he was subjected amounted to torture.

Pucci v. Michigan Supreme Court

601 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 3, 2009

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a ‘constitutional right’ and (2) that the right Svas clearly established.’ ” Leary

Patino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

207 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2016

“[T]he doctrine 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 … whether the constitutional right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31

984 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity with respect to claims against Alexander in his individual capacity. … Qualified immunity can shield Alexander from liability for civil damages if his conduct “d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

Barbera v. Smith

836 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Qualified Immunity Prosecutors are entitled to qualified immunity from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Yet, unless it was clearly established in 1981-82 that the government owed a duty of protection to someone in Barbera’s position, qualified immunity will insulate Schlessinger’s actions.

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing

Cronn v. Buffington

150 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1998

The district court granted qualified immunity to all Defendants. … Because there was no “clearly established” right to be free from seizure under such a warrant, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants based on the defense of qualified immunity

Andrew M. Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority (Nycta), Carmen J. Bianco

215 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 26, 2000

Resolution of those issues is not required to determine whether Bianco was entitled to qualified immunity because, if he is, immunity protects him irrespective of whether Rohman can establish the elements of malicious prosecution … clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the defendant’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Dale E. Kraus and Rosetta M. Kraus, Husband and Wife Cindy D. Kraus, Individually and Todd W. Montgomery, Individually v. County of Pierce

793 F.2d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 17, 1986

The Supreme Court has noted, however, that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability____” Mitchell v. … According to the test for qualified immunity established by the Supreme Court, the deputies in this case are immune from liability (and trial) if “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

McLaughlin v. CASLER

634 F. Supp. 2d 881 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2009

to qualified immunity. … with due process, and (3) the undisputed facts establish that Casler and Fritz are entitled to qualified immunity.

Glass v. Mayas

984 F.2d 55 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 1993

Due Process Qualified immunity protects government officials from the “costs of trial” and “broad reaching discovery” by shielding them from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Thomas v. Devries

834 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 19, 1993

Suits against state employees in their individual capacities may be subject to qualified or good faith immunity, and such defendants are shielded from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established … Busby also preserves qualified immunity when there is no violation of a clearly defined property interests associated with substantive due process, and in the present ease there is no clearly defined property interest that

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.

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): 8 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Id. 12 Officer Spinharney concedes that Zuchel's right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.