Case 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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

Emil A. Tonkovich v. Kansas Board Of Regents

159 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 26, 1998

I, doc. 3 at 172 (plaintiff's failure to allege that Hearing Committee members violated clearly established right entitles them to qualified immunity); id., doc. 4 at 216-17 (plaintiff's failure to identify clearly established … Pages and pages of facts are no substitute for citations to clearly established law. Nor can they meet Professor Tonkovich's burden on qualified immunity.

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.

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.’ “).

Slone v. Herman

983 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 4, 1993

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that, in order for officials to lose their qualified immunity, their conduct must violate “clearly established statutory … The Court stated that the agent was entitled to qualified immunity if, “in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search

Thompson v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 24, 2024

“The reasonableness of the official’s conduct and the degree to which the particular right in question was clearly established are thus merged into one issue for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.” … And, if evidence did, Thompson has not carried his burden as to qualified immunity’s clearly established prong to the extent that he relies on “Cole v.

West v. Kind

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 12, 2024

Most of the time, the reason for dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds is the lack of a clearly established constitutional right. … “Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’”