Case law

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

829 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 14, 1992

First, the evidence does not clearly establish that GAB was an agent of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool. … We are not persuaded that GAB is entitled to official or governmental immunity. The trial court committed no error in refusing to grant a directed verdict on the basis of governmental immunity.

Thompson v. Reuting

968 F.2d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 7, 1992

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the Supreme Court held that police officers seeking arrest warrants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless “the warrant application is so … We therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Thompson’s complaint on the ground that Reuting was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. III.

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

in Re the State of Texas, Ex. Rel. Joe D. Gonzales, District Attorney, Bexar County

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 28, 2019

clearly controlling legal principles.” … See Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 (“an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”)

Betty Willingham, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. James Loughnan, Brian Buecler, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

321 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 2003

The Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their acts unless they — -given the circumstances — violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have … And we, in the absence of particularized caselaw, have acted to deny qualified immunity to officials whose use of force clearly exceeded the “hazy border” surrounding acceptable force.

Caldarola v. Calabrese

298 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 2002

Qualified Immunity A. "Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.'" Saucier v. … If the law was clearly established that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Prokop v. Hileman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 2, 2022

“The 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 … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (“The dispositive question” for qualified immunity is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”)

Samedi v. Miami-Dade County

134 F. Supp. 2d 1320 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2001

White’s qualified immunity insulates him from suit. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Harbert International, Inc. v. James

157 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1998

clearly established law. … clearly established law, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects him.

CROSLAND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 2023

That leaves the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law. … its caselaw suggests that municipal liability should remain untethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.

Iko v. Shreve

535 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 6, 2008

Shreve can still enjoy qualified immunity from suit if he can show that this constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of Iko’s death. … SHREVE pepper spray was clearly established, preventing an award of qualified immunity to Lt. Shreve on the facts before us.11 B.

Robert Wilk v. Dwight Neven

956 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2020

The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Wilk’s evidence, even if true, did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. … Law is “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at issue. Taylor v.

PALMIERI VS. CLARK CO.

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Armonia Rigsby v. County of Los Angeles

531 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 24, 2013

Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs’ privacy rights were violated, Defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights that Plaintiffs seek to protect were not clearly established at the time of … United States, 373 F.3d 952, 976 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that right was not clearly established because the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court had never squarely addressed the alleged right).

Pickens v. Hollowell

59 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 1995

In order for the law to be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, "the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Malley and Garmon clearly establish that a police officer is not protected by qualified immunity if he applies for an arrest warrant where "a reasonably well-trained officer ... would have known that his affidavit failed

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2022

The 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 … A qualified immunity determination involves a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional or federal right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established.” Saucier v.

Williams v. Aaron

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

The Defendant argues in the Trial Brief that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing … Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992) (the question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the court to decide).

S.G., as Guardian Ad Litem of A.G. A Minor and Individually v. Sayreville Board of Education Georgia B. Baumann William L. Bauer

333 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 19, 2003

In any event, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law to the contrary. … speech, procedural due process or equal protection, 3 and because there is no clearly established law to the contrary, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity. 4 IV.

Minpeco, S.A. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc. Nelson Bunker Hunt

844 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 19, 1988

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: This case presents questions of congressional immunity under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. … Thus, the process by which a committee takes statements and prepares them for publication clearly qualifies as an activity “within the ‘legislative sphere.’ ” See also Browning v. Clerk, U.S.

In Re Conner

172 B.R. 119 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 15, 1994

However, this principle cannot change the law which requires an annuity contract to qualify for the section 222.14 exemption. … If all that is required to establish an annuity contract is a stream of payments over time, all installment contracts would qualify as an annuity and that is clearly not what the McCollam decision requires.