Case law

Wilansky v. Bakke

District Court, D. North Dakota · Apr 3, 2024

Accordingly, the individually-named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Claim One of the Amended Complaint. See Jones v. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (when deciding qualified immunity, the Court looks to (1) whether a constitutional violation has been adequately pled and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

Zamsky v. Hansell

933 F.2d 677 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 17, 1991

The cost of establishing the defense of qualified immunity is simply part of the price of having a viable remedy for constitutional violations; it is not a sufficient reason, in and of itself, for finding governmental actors … After all, officials who don’t violate clearly recognized rights will be entitled to qualified immunity — and will not be liable — regardless of how this case is decided.

Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco

570 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2009

The Inspectors moved for summary judgment on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. … The Inspectors also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … immunity at this time since “[i]t was clearly established by [Baker v.

Kinney v. Weaver

367 F.3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 19, 2004

Yet, at the same time, an official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract. … It is true that, even without judicial interpretation, violation of a statute can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.

ALIOTA v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2024

If the complaint fails to state a claim of a violation of clearly established law on its face, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Here, the individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “filing of a counterclaim for defamation did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights” (ECF No. 18,

Levine v. City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 29, 2017

Featherstone are each entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Levine’s claims against them in their individual capacities. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

In Re KBR, Inc.

736 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2010

Clearly, the Supreme Court viewed the concept of derivative sovereign immunity, at least as it derives from the immunity of federal officials, as separate and distinct from the preemption-based government contractor defense … Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has clearly embraced the terminology of derivative sovereign immunity, as explained herein. See infra Parts I.B.2-3.

Hayden v. Green

640 F.3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2011

that right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. … We reverse the district court’s order denying qualified immunity, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Memorial Hermann Hospital System D/B/A Memorial Hermann Southwest Hospital v. Jewell Hayden

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 17, 2014

Mar. 28, 2014) (“Generally, waiver presents a question of fact, but ‘when the facts and circumstances are admitted or clearly established, the question [of waiver] becomes one of law.’”) … To limit the rights that may be waived only to those where the law clearly establishes an ability to prevail is to demand too much.

Hughes v. Alabama Department of Public Safety

994 F. Supp. 1395 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 23, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant engaged in conduct that violated “clearly established law.” Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d at 1559, 1565 (11th Cir.1994). … In addition, Hughes has failed to establish that the individual defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law." … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Waterman v. Batton

393 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2005

Thus, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established’ for qualified immunity purposes” and that “ ‘[c]learly established’ in this context includes not only already specifically adjudicated rights, but those manifestly included within more general applications of

Jemmott v. Coughlin

85 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that officers performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages if their conduct either “did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Given this finding, and the fact that defendants are accused of violating what they reasonably should have known is a clearly established right, we decline to grant qualified immunity to the defendants.

Fernander v. Bonis

947 So. 2d 584 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 3, 2007

We first address Fernander's claim the trial court erred in finding that Captain Bonis was entitled to qualified immunity as to Fernander's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claims. … A plaintiff suing a government official has the burden of showing that the official's acts, at the time, violated clearly established law." Alexander v. Univ. of N. Fla., 39 F.3d 290 , 291 (11th Cir.1994).

Roska Ex Rel. Roska v. Peterson

304 F.3d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

Whether the law was “clearly established.” … Amendment principle was “clearly established.”

Davis v. Bradshaw

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2020

Pridmore, 961 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that identification of a broad, clearly established principle is one way to show that a defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right … Davis has not carried his burden to show that Deputy Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Keating v.

Ramirez v. Killian

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

The qualified-immunity analysis requires that a right be “clearly established.” See id. … violated clearly established law.”

Holzemer v. City of Memphis

621 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 15, 2010

She further argues that if the conversation were protected petitioning, she would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Estate of Marvin L. Booker v. Gomez

745 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity—clearly established law Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did -40- not violate clearly established law. … Booker’s serious medical need and (b) this would violate clearly established law, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. a.