Case law

In Re Litigation Relating to the Riot of September 22, 1991

283 Mont. 277 · Montana Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1997

There, the federal district court had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that the defendant's actions violated clearly established law, and the Third Circuit held … Reiterating the well- established standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v.

Sreeram v. Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport

188 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 16, 1999

The district court found that the record overwhelmingly established that Dr. Sreeram was not qualified to continue as a third year resident and was therefore unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … Sreer-am failed to establish a prima facie case of sex and/or national origin discrimination because she failed to establish that she was qualified for the position in question at all relevant times.

Heleba v. Allbee

160 Vt. 283 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 17, 1992

We conclude, however, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. A. … Thus, the test is an objective one, requiring a determination of the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 .

STATE OF MICHIGAN v. McQUEEN

493 Mich. 135 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his debilitating … under § 4 of the MMMA inapplicable. *155 The text of § 4(d) establishes that the MMMA intends to allow “a qualifying patient or primary caregiver” to be immune from arrest, prosecution, or penalty only if conduct related

Conlin v. Colvin

111 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 29, 2015

She noted that N.T.C.B. had problems speaking clearly. (Tr. 169). … It is well established *387 that teacher questionnaires are considered valid “other source” opinions. See Hart, 2014 WL 916747 , at *5; Spruill ex rel. J.T. v.

Saenz v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.

224 F. Supp. 3d 477 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 20, 2016

“Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … General Qualified Immunity Analysis Turning to whether Plaintiff has overcome Defendant Romero’s claim of qualified immunity, the Court must determine *483 whether (1) Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Rico v. State

472 N.W.2d 100 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jun 21, 1991

In section 1983 actions government officials are entitled to immunity from liability for damages unless the official’s conduct *108 violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Nevertheless, federal decisions interpreting qualified immunity under section 1983, though certainly not conclusive, are instructive when we examine an official immunity issue because section 1983 qualified immunity and common

Mark Porter v. Jean Hill

402 F. App'x 285 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 2, 2010

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Kentucky

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 21, 2024

clearly established at the time of the arrest.” … Mich. 2015) (holding defendant did not adequately raise qualified immunity because he “must do more than quote legal standards on what counts as clearly-established law” when “[h]e merely quote[d] standards governing the

Schmitt v. LANGENOUR

162 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶14 Schmitt contends that Forbes was not entitled to qualified immunity on his § 1983 claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because she *405 violated a clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[glovemment officials performing discretionary functions” are immune from § 1983 suits “if their conduct is objectively reasonable when measured against clearly established law.”

Bisbal-Ramos v. City of Mayagüez

467 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 11, 2006

A public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he violated a plaintiff's constitutional right and if, at the time of the violation, the right was so clearly established that it would have been clear to a reasonable … It was clearly established by Branti v.

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

Gala v. The City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 11, 2021

“[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 him … Instead, “[a] defendant pleading qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss is entitled to prevail if the allegations in the complaint fail to ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’” McEvoy v.

Howlett v. Warren, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 2019

Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability unless they violate “clearly established” federal law at the time they acted. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Taking the second qualified immunity question first, Plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause not to be discriminated against by the City on the basis of race

Pachote v. County of Contra Costa

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 3, 2023

Qualified Immunity. 20 Nelson and Thomas also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Pachote’s 21 Section 1983 claims. … The doctrine of “qualified immunity shields individual officers from 22 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional 23 rights of which a reasonable person

Elwood v. County of Rice

423 N.W.2d 671 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 1988

The test for immunity became whether the officials’ conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reason *675 able person would have known.” … The court of appeals found the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment were clearly established at the time of the incident. Creighton v. City of St.

Ascent Energy, LLC v. Reach Wireline, LLC

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 18, 2021

to dismiss that attack the Court’s jurisdiction or motions for summary judgment which raise qualified immunity, would be contrary to the disfavored status of stays. Id. at 5 (citing New Mexico ex rel. … Courts do routinely stay discovery for summary judgment motions on the basis of qualified immunity, and for motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. See, e.g., Workman v.

Robbins v. Bureau of Land Management

252 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity. … A federal employee is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established rights at issue.

United States v. Howard Taylor

728 F.2d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 12, 1984

Because this testimony clearly indicated to the jury that the bank was federally insured on August 7, 1981, the date of the robbery, it satisfied the proof requirement established in Shively and Knop . … a defense witness was clearly dictum. 6 .

Krites v. Wayne County Schools Career Center Board of Education

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2023

“To avoid the shield of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must properly plead ‘facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendants assert that Defendant Crain4 “is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Plaintiff failed to establish that her due process rights were violated.”