Case law

Jan McRaven v. Lt. McMurrian

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court denied defendant-appellants qualified immunity. A detainee’s right to medical treatment is clearly established. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.

Heather Hinterberger v. Iroquios School District

548 F. App'x 50 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 5, 2013

“District court opinions may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified immunity analysis.” Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 321 (3d Cir. 2001). … As Hinterberger’s alleged right was not clearly established at the time of her injury, Loftus is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. III.

Robin Kirkland Neal v. Daniel Ficcadenti

895 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity because the issue of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a question of law. See Jackson v. … Clearly Established Right We turn now to the question of whether or not the constitutional right that Officer Ficcadenti allegedly violated was clearly established as of June 6, 2012.

Bruce Joiner v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2020

Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 195 (1996) (noting the “established practice of construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign”). … These recitations are insufficient to establish that further discovery will overcome the discretionary function exception and defeat sovereign immunity.

Segaline v. Department of Labor & Industries

199 Wash. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2017

entitled to qualified immunity. … If Alan Croft has qualified immunity as to the trespass notice he is entitled to qualified immunity for the actions that flowed from it. . . . Absent a clearly established right, Mr.

Stevens v. Stearns

175 Vt. 428 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Aug 1, 2003

Plaintiffs argue that issue preclusion is inappropriate here because the standard for establishing qualified immunity in cases involving alleged violations of Chapter I, Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution should be … The federal court assessed defendants’ actions in light of this “clearly established” right. We are asked to conduct the same analysis here. *437 ¶ 23.

Carla Blake v. Don Lambert

921 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 5, 2019

The district court denied qualified immunity. … “Once invoked, a plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting qualified immunity by showing two things: (1) that the officials violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established at the

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 15, 2009

established’ to preclude qualified immunity.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity looks to whether there was a clearly established right in issue.

Sherrod v. SCHOOL BD. OF PALM BEACH COUNTY

703 F. Supp. 2d 1279 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity operates to ensure that “before they are subjected to suit, [public] officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful.” Hope v. … Thus, qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

The Estate of Roosevelt Holliman v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Sep 1, 2023

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Once qualified immunity has been “raised as a defense by a defendant, … the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the proof and arguments necessary to overcome it.” Strickland v. City of Crenshaw, 114 F.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

980 P.2d 742 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

No qualified immunity for violation of a clearly established right. Harwick's threshold defense is qualified immunity. [1] Harlow v. … Clearly, qualified immunity is appropriate only where assertions of fact by the plaintiff do not rise to the level of a clearly established constitutional violation.

Schnabel v. Tyler

230 Conn. 735 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 9, 1994

Furthermore, “[e]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for … view that the clearly established law prong was dispositive of the qualified immunity defense.

Commonwealth v. Robinson

399 Pa. Super. 199 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 5, 1990

Appellant’s second issue relates to the expert testimony offered by the Commonwealth to establish that the drugs possessed by appellant were for delivery to others, rather than for personal use. … If accepted by the jury, as it clearly was, it provided an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the Commonwealth proved the intent to deliver element of the crime charged. Commonwealth v.

Donnetta Smith v. Stoneburner

716 F.3d 926 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 10, 2013

In this qualified immunity case, as in all qualified immunity cases, two questions arise: whether the officers violated the Smiths’ constitutional rights, and if so whether those rights were clearly established at the time … Two appellate decisions, it is true, granted qualified immunity to officers on not- clearly-established grounds, but they each involved a fact pattern at least one prominent step removed from this one. In Malachowski v.

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors

97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.

Frasier v. Evans

992 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2021

Frasier’s clearly established First Amendment rights—and the district court itself said they did not—then the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … - established-law component of the qualified-immunity standard.

Junior v. Reed

693 So. 2d 586 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 20, 1997

The trial court should have sustained Commissioner Junior's claim of qualified immunity, however, because the conduct forming the basis of the complaint by the Reeds does not amount to a violation of a clearly established … To qualify as a "clearly established" right as that phrase is used in Harlow v.

Cherry Knoll, L.L.C. v. HDR Engineering, Incorpora

922 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2019

In response, Jones moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable

Knight v. State of Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified Immunity – Scully and Sugg Defendants Scully and Sugg also have pending a motion to dismiss, making various arguments including that their actions are shielded by qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law).

Treneshia Dukes v. Nicholas Deaton

852 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2017

Qualified immunity also protects Branham because his subordinate’s constitutional violation was not clearly established. A. Deaton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … Branham is entitled to qualified immunity because Deaton’s conduct was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.