Case law

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.”

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

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.

KEITH v. VANDINE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 22, 2022

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) ("[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.

Hutchison v. City of Huntington

198 W. Va. 139 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1996

in light of clearly established law, to a given (for purposes of appeal) set of facts. … When dealing with hroad rights, the plaintiff bears the burden of particularizing such a right before those rights are subject to the qualified immunity test of being clearly established.

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 .

Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth

933 F.3d 696 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

for qualified immun- ity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern- ment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con- stitutional rights

Hollis Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 7, 2024

immunity. … City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory

Poole v. Bishop

District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from all of Poole’s claims.20 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials … [qualified immunity] is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” 20 Defendants do not argue why they are entitled to qualified immunity on a claim- by-claim basis.

Kelly McSean v. Chris Chamberlain

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 969-70 (8th Cir. 2015) (complaint may be sua sponte dismissed on preservice screening based on qualified-immunity defense if it is established on face of complaint); cf. … Beard, 97 F.4th at 1115-16 (affirming denial of qualified immunity on unreasonable-search claim because it was clearly established that a degrading, humiliating, or abusive strip search of an arrestee violated the Fourth

Ochser v. Funk

225 Ariz. 484 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Sep 28, 2010

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if a reasonable government official could have believed his actions to be lawful, in the light of clearly established law and the information he possessed … Officials are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” that were taken. Mitchell v.

Picatti v. Miner

165 Idaho 611 · Idaho Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2019

rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” … Nevertheless, despite the need for a jury in this bifurcated process, the ultimate legal questions of clearly established rights, potential violations of those rights, and entitlement to qualified immunity must remain in

Williams v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 7, 2025

Reaching only the first element, the Court finds Williams has not sufficiently rebutted qualified immunity “by establishing that [Tindell’s] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” , 117 F.3d … Reaching only the first element, the Court finds Williams has not sufficiently rebutted qualified immunity “by establishing that [Tindell’s] allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.” , 117 F.3d at 872

Thomas Cress v. Carmen Palmer, Warden, Riverside Correctional Facility

484 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 5, 2007

The district court concluded that because the Supreme Court has not clearly established that post-conviction destruction is a due process violation, the petitioner’s claim in this regard could was not cognizable on federal … Clearly, it is a burden that the petitioner in this case has not been able to carry successfully. III.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Brown v. Venable

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2019

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (“This circuit has held that the right to be free from excessive force . . . is a clearly established right for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.”).

Doe v. Ohio State University

219 F. Supp. 3d 645 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2016

The Court “review[s] an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’ ” Back v. … Majarian is entitled to qualified immunity because Doe has stated no specific allegations that Majarian violated clearly established law by failing to disclose key impeachment evidence.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica’s qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court’s order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Back v. Schrader

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 2008

But the court denied the defendants’ request for qualified immunity on Back’s political-affiliation claims, holding that Back had adequately alleged a clearly established constitutional violation. … P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” Mitchell v.