Case law

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Hill v. City of New York

45 F.3d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 17, 1995

IV Qualified Immunity and Failure to State a Claim Adago urges that even were he not to be entitled to absolute immunity for some of his conduct, qualified immunity shields him from liability for it. … Under qualified immunity, a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official possesses, it was objectively reasonable for him to think that his

James White v. Tammie Stanley

745 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2014

The court added that even if the argument had  not been waived, the deputies would not have been entitled  to qualified immunity because they violated a clearly estab‐ lished right.  … As  in  all  cases  concerning  qualified  immunity,  we  must  determine  whether  there  was  (1)  a  violation  of  (2)  a  clearly  established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. 

Merriman v. Walton

856 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

The court characterized the question in terms of probable cause and an assertion of qualified immunity. … (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the plaintiff’s] warrantless [arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed

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.”

Kremer v. Cox

114 Ohio App. 3d 41 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1996

We further note that, since Cox’s statements were made in his capacity as coroner, they are protected by a qualified immunity codified in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). … QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE Cox asserts that the statements of which Kremer complains were made in Cox’s official capacity as coroner. Therefore, he claims, a “qualified privilege” attaches to them.

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.

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.

Patricia Littrell v. Daniel Jake Franklin

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 2, 2004

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires courts “to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Specific findings on these questions of fact would have enabled the district court to address the legal issue of qualified immunity through reference to excessive force standards that are clearly established.

Knepper v. Genstar Corp.

537 So. 2d 619 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Dec 20, 1988

Knepper, having worked in the explosives industry for over twenty-five years selling explosives and implementing their on-site use, had established a large clientele. … Where the circumstances and content of allegedly defamatory statements are clearly disputed by the parties, the jury should determine, under proper instructions from the court, whether or not the communication was privileged

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.

Terrell v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 6, 2022

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 169 (5th Cir. 2009) (an off-duty officer responding to a traffic violation was not entitled to qualified immunity because the officer allegedly violated clearly established law). … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

King v. Ambs

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

established and Officer Ambs would be entitled to qualified immunity. . . . … Ambs’s conduct vis-a-vis the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Mark Lyon v. S. Thacker

517 F. App'x 564 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 23, 2013

Dismissal of Lyon’s claims for damages was proper because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).