Case law

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.

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

Tuttle v. Sepolio

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 23, 2023

Several of the officers moved to dismiss, asserting qualified immunity. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

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.

Hails v. Dennis

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 14, 2018

Forsyth the Supreme Court reiterated that “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the … of a clearly established constitutional right.’ “).

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).

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.

Cory Burnett v. Phillip Smith and State of Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 5, 2023

These include whether qualified immunity is available and what the standard should be, Baldwin I, 915 N.W.2d at 279–81; whether judicial process immunity is available, Venckus v. … Supp. 3d at 953 (“For the same reasons they must be denied federal qualified immunity on Clinton’s § 1983 claim, Officers Garrett, Steinkamp, and Minnehan must also be denied immunity under state law.”); Williams, 516

Turner v. City of North Charleston

675 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 14, 1987

If this right to protection was not then “clearly established,” these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, to summary judgment. … If this right is not clearly established, good faith immunity may be invoked regardless of the language of the statute. See Jensen, 747 F.2d at 195, n. 12 . 3 .

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.

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Gaston v. Ploeger

229 F. App'x 702 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

When a defendant has asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish: (1) that the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional right, and (2) that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly … The appellants contend that, as a matter of law, the facts in the record do not establish a constitutional violation; if this is true, they are necessarily entitled to qualified immunity.

Deborah Franklin v. City of Charlotte

64 F.4th 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 4, 2023

In which case, Officer Kerl violated clearly established law. … Therefore, she is not entitled to qualified immunity on Mrs.

Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.

3 N.J. Tax 105 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

Quinton Brown v. Larry Adams

667 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2016

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying Brown’s religious texts … See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

Kerns v. Bader

663 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2011

In other words, the district court’s opinion addressed only the first part of the two part test for qualified immunity. What to do when the district court fails to address the second, clearly established law, element? … And it proceeds to deny qualified immunity to all three defendants without pausing to address the clearly established law question. To be sure, the dissent appears very concerned by the fact that Mr.

Schroeder v. St. Louis County

708 N.W.2d 497 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 26, 2006

Nevertheless, we extended official immunity to the teacher because the department policy itself was being challenged and the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official … He was not required by an established protocol to grade against traffic.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Conway

152 Vt. 363 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Aug 25, 1989

first impression in a manner “not clearly foreshadowed”), and where its retroactive application would be inequitable. … First, we do not see this case as establishing a new rule of law..

Dodge v. Dean

31 F. App'x 759 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 29, 2002

Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 , 112 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[W]e see no reason to expect that discovery would have helped [plaintiff] establish a triable issue of material fact. … And we are particularly reluctant to remand for unnecessary discovery because this case revolves around questions of absolute and qualified immunity.”). The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Robert Devereaux v. Roberto Ricardo Perez

218 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 12, 2000

ANALYSIS Standard of Review 30 A district court's decision that an asserted federal right was "clearly established" such that qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. … Bailey, 957 F.2d 920, 931 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that "the dimensions of [the] right [to family integrity ] have yet to be clearly established" and applying qualified immunity to suit in which social worker allegedly interfered