Case law

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time "clearly established," or if "clearly established," was one that a "reasonable" person in the defendant's … violate clearly established rights."

Frazier v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established” at the time of the violation. 3 It is hard to understand why the Defendants waited until two years after this lawsuit was filed to raise the issue of qualified immunity.

Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College

658 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2009

Page contend that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs section 1983 claim for money damages. … , 119 S.Ct. 1692 . *725 In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly

Adkins v. City of New York

143 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2015

An official is entitled to immunity if “his action was ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” Taravella v. … The defense of qualified immunity extends to supervisory liability claims. See Poe v.

Holder v. Town of Newton, et al.

2010 DNH 019 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 3, 2010

But because the law is not clearly established on that point, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. This court therefore grants summary judgment on all claims. A. … to qualified immunity.”

Chilicky v. Schweiker

796 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 12, 1986

With qualified immunity, federal officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional … determine whether the law is clearly established.

Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz

329 P.3d 214 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2014

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claim against all of the defendants, finding no violation of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … or qualified immunity” grounds.

Cooper v. Rodriguez

443 Md. 680 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 24, 2015

App. at 120, 814 A.2d at 134, writing for the Court of Special Appeals, Judge Greene explained that, when the above statutes are read in concert, they “clearly establish[] that a party can bring a viable tort action against … officials are entitled to qualified immunity from negligence claims. . . .

Molina-Gomes v. Welinski

676 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Hope v. … The test for whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Gorman v. Roberts

909 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 18, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunt further asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this action, because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable public official knew … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

O'Connor v. Donovan

Vermont Superior Court · Dec 13, 2010

“[I]f the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established [law] of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.” Id. … O’Connor points to no clearly established law that such conduct would violate.

Tidwell v. City & County of Denver

62 P.3d 1020 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2002

vehicle operator or the governmental entity qualifies for immunity. … Therefore, he was not required to use his lights and sirens to qualify for immunity under the GIA.

Burkett v. City of El Paso

513 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 14, 2007

When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … to qualified immunity.

Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City

248 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2001

Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 530 (10th Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity is proper when plaintiff fails to cite any case law which demonstrates the violation of a clearly established constitutional right). … See Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 (“a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the 28 law was clearly established”).

Kaufman v. McCaughtry

422 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2006

However, they contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs rights were not settled under clearly established law at the time their actions were taken. … Therefore, in determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the key question is whether at the time defendants denied plaintiffs request to form a study group, it was clearly established that atheism

Bapat v. Connecticut Department of Health Services

815 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 29, 1992

Even where the contours of the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts, “the defendant may enjoy qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his … immunity is whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established.”

Jones v. Kirchner

66 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2014

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Defs.’ Mem. at 34-35. I agree. … Qualified immunity does not protect “those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Jasinski v. Glencoe Department of Public Safety

836 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 2011

In determining whether a public official is protected by qualified immunity, I consider “whether a constitutional right has been violated,” and “whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted.” … The defendants did not argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

Garretson v. City of Madison Heights

407 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 27, 2005

entitled to qualified immunity. … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Qasem v. Toro

737 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity Third, Thornton and Rogers claim that qualified immunity requires dismissal of this litigation as to them. … “A right is clearly established if (1) the law is defined with Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the right, and (3) ‘a reasonable defendant [would] have understood from the existing law that [his] conduct