Case law

Tuesday Stepp v. Arthur L. Proctor Tom Creider Louis Stelting

13 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 2, 1993

We have previously set out the procedure for analyzing a qualified immunity claim: 6 First, the defendant must raise the defense of qualified immunity. … official violated the clearly established law.

Spencer v. Roche

755 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant VHS contends that its nurse employees are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that it cannot be liable under a theory of vicarious or supervisory liability for actions that are … Defendants Roche and Morris do not assert qualified immunity as a defense on summary judgment. 13 .

Billado v. Parry

937 F. Supp. 337 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jul 18, 1996

The deputies do not dispute that the law governing their § 1983 duties was clearly established on March 21, 1992. … Sheriff Manosh claims that he cannot be held liable for the negligent actions of his deputies because they are protected by qualified immunity, and he is protected by official immunity.

Scott v. Churchill

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2004

An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established Scott v. … Cale, decided in 1988, clearly entitled to qualified immunity. establishes that the mere potential threat of disciplinary sanctions is sufficiently adverse action to support a claim of E.

Cromartie v. Billings

Supreme Court of Virginia · Jan 16, 2020

The court in Smith held that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. These cases are sufficiently similar to Cromartie’s to constitute clearly established law. … and qualified immunity.

United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington

316 F.3d 392 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 14, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ “conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … clearly established at the time of the violation.

Zavaro v. Coughlin

775 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 20, 1991

That issue presents a question which turns on Homrighouse’s right to a qualified immunity defense. … A state official may establish a right to qualified immunity from suit and from liability by showing (i) that it was not clear at the time of the official acts that the interest asserted by the plaintiff was protected by

Kirkland Ex Rel. Jones v. Greene County Board of Education

347 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2003

Notwithstanding that his actual conduct may have violated the Constitution, Morrow agues that at the time of the incident the right to be free from corporal punishment was not clearly established. … Thus, the qualified immunity question turns on whether Morrow’s actions as described by Kirkland violated these principles.

McKenna v. City of Royal Oak

469 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 28, 2006

While the officers assert that they “raise only the legal issue of whether the facts set forth by [McKenna] constitute a violation of clearly established law,” all three arguments advanced by the officers on the issue of … qualified immunity appeal.

Bradley v. Village of Greenwood Lake

376 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Peterson v. Tomaselli

469 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Doyle v. Dukakis

699 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The Court need not rest its decision on such a broad determination, however, in light of the qualified immunity from suit available to these defendants. In Harlow v. … The Supreme Court wrote that if a judge, on summary judgment, determines that “the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

Dearden v. City of Detroit

403 Mich. 257 · Michigan Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1978

The Court reached this conclusion after noting the statutory power of the commission to regulate all public utilities was qualified by the phrase, "except as otherwise restricted by law”. … .; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.

Danahy v. Buscaglia

134 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 27, 1998

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages if the challenged action “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … concluded the jury might find, the immunity defense is established as a matter of law because those facts show ... that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established

Bollinger v. Oregon

172 F. App'x 770 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2006

Under the law of the case doctrine in our circuit, subsequent proceedings should follow the law of the case established in a previous appellate decision unless: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would … Since, in the posture presented to us, this qualified immunity question is a purely legal one, and Bollinger I held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, that holding controls this appeal as law of

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have

Woods v. Aldworth

561 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 1983

Aldworth does not contend that the constitutional rights at issue here were not clearly established during the period in question. Instead, relying on Procunier v. … When Procunier was decided, the standard for qualified immunity included both a subjective and an objective component.

Flores v. Danfelser

127 N.M. 571 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1999

Board of County Comm’rs, 1998-NMCA-090, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 445 , 963 P.2d 522 . {23} We further note that qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” … Qualified immunity may be “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id.

Pinal County v. Cooper

238 Ariz. 346 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Oct 20, 2015

Qualified immunity is unavail *350 able if the official “knew or should have known that he was acting in violation of established law or acted in reckless disregard of whether his activities would deprive another person of … “Thus, in a defamation ease, qualified immunity will protect a public official if the facts establish that a reasonable person, with the information available to the official, ‘could have formed a reasonable belief that the