Case law

Vojvodich v. Lopez

48 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 1995

State officials are protected by qualified immunity for alleged constitutional torts if their conduct does not violate clearly established law effective at the time of the alleged tort.24 … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is determining whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time the events occurred.

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Davis v. State

902 N.W.2d 165 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2017

To show a clearly established federal right, the U.S. … clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.140 A court can address the two compo- nents of the qualified immunity analysis in either order.141 139 See Harlow v.

Guerrero Ex Rel. Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.

123 P.3d 966 · Alaska Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2005

They therefore qualify as immune under Alaska’s planning-operational test of discretionary function immunity. 76 We have reached the same conclusion regarding the construction of pedestrian overpasses 77 and other highway … would bar the claim unless the project at issue — here, the A/C traffic couplet — was governed by clearly established standards that mandated their installation.

Mumm v. Mornson

708 N.W.2d 475 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

rights was not clearly established. … To avoid application of qualified immunity, the law regarding Mornson’s right to be free from the unreasonable use of force must have been clearly established at the time of the pursuit.

Wilmot v. Tracey

938 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269 .

Virden v. Roper

302 Ark. 125 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 23, 1990

The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established. Robinson v. Beaumont, supra; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); and see Cohen v. … They maintain in the alternative if a violation of a constitutional right occurred, it is not a “clearly established” right and, hence, appellants are entitled to qualified immunity under Mitchell, supra.

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.

Nikos Kidis v. Jean Reid

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that government officials are generally entitled to immunity from civil damages as long as they did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights”); see … ] from raising the qualified immunity defense on appeal from a final judgment.”).

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.

Lavigne v. Forshee

307 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Thus, in the case of a police officer, qualified immunity will not apply if the officer transgresses a right that was “clearly established,” when “‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [her] conduct was unlawful

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.