Case law

Atkins v. Township of Flint

94 F. App'x 342 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

Atkins clearly established constitutional right not to be arrested without probable cause and not to be subjected to excessive force. … Atkins could maintain a § 1983 action based on a violation of his clearly established right to be free from an arrest without a probable cause.

Spencer v. King County

39 Wash. App. 201 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1984

State officials are afforded a qualified immunity from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … At a minimum, the constitutional rights asserted by Spencer were not "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct.

Idom v. Natchez-Adams School District

115 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 14, 2015

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, courts apply the two pronged analysis established in Saucier v. … Turning to Hill and Smith, both have raised the defense of qualified immunity. To overcome this defense, Idom must allege that a clearly established constitutional right was violated.

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.

Wesbrock v. Ledford

District Court, D. Arizona · Jun 3, 2020

Qualified Immunity 17 Finally, the Glendale Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity … In that scenario, the Glendale Defendants would be entitled to 4 qualified immunity. Reed v.

Oona, R.-S.-, a Minor, by Kate S., Her Guardian, Kate S. And Ken R. v. Patricia McCaffrey Gerald Hill Ronald Lundy

122 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

A school counselor appealed from an order denying him qualified immunity on the ground that his alleged conduct in failing to take steps to stop sexual harassment violated clearly established rights under Title IX. … We hold only that the duty to take reasonable steps is clearly established. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s order denying qualified immunity to the defendants.

Allen Hopkins, Cross-Appellant v. John E. Stice and Texas Dept. Of Corrections, John E. Stice, Cross-Appellee

916 F.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

Hopkins must persuade that Stice deprived him of a protectible property or liberty interest without due process of law, and, because Stice as a public official is protected by qualified immunity, that Stice violated a clearly … Public officials are, of course, immune from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory norm, a question not necessarily answered by the certainty of the legal rule.

Hlad Ex Rel. Shipley v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

305 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if the qualified immunity doctrine applies to Defendant Carter, he has not established that he is entitled to application of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Reed v. Multi-Cty. Juvenile Sys.

2010 Ohio 6602 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2010

To overcome the appellants' qualified-immunity defense, Reed must establish that the appellants' conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Hope v. … Leonard (C.A.8, 2007), 477 F.3d 544, where qualified immunity was denied via summary judgment.

Strope v. Collins

492 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 15, 2007

Qualified Immunity on Individual Capacity Claims Generally, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … Accordingly, the current summary judgment record does not establish, at least at this procedural juncture, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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.

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.

Victor Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio

114 F.4th 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

established, so qualified immunity insulates the officers from liability. … So, even assuming that Couzens established constitutional violations here, those violations were not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 8 Because Couzens sued Arns in his official

Clark v. Bridges

211 F. Supp. 3d 731 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 30, 2016

As the Magistrate Judge deftly explains, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly established … In determining whether qualified immunity applies here/the Court must determine: (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; and, (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Long v. City and County of Honolulu

378 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 11, 2005

If the answer is no, there is qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court then asks whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … See, e.g., Blanford, 406 F.3d at 1116 (finding qualified immunity where deadly force was used to stop suspect appearing to threaten others with a sword); Billing - ton, 292 F.3d at 1184-85 (finding qualified immunity where

In re Roberts Litigation

97 F. Supp. 3d 1239 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 19, 2015

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v. … A two-part process for analyzing the application of qualified immunity is established in Saticier. The initial inquiry focuses on whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Id.

Barber v. Lynch

275 Pa. Super. 333 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 1980

and qualified privilege or immunity. … The preliminary objections of Appellees do not specifically use the term “qualified privilege” or “qualified immunity”.

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.”

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.

Ross v. State of Alabama

15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 22, 1998

Pleading with specificity is particularly important where, as here, a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, and the court must decide whether the conduct complained of violates a “clearly established” constitutional … As Defendants correctly note, the Supreme Court has stated that, “[ujnless the plaintiff's allegation states a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal