Case law

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

272 Kan. 627 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 7, 2001

Waiver of qualified immunity. … fact, which if proven, would demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Sause v. Bauer

859 F.3d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2017

First, she argues that the defendants aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because they violated her clearly established rights under the First Amendment. … Second, she argues that even assuming the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the contours of that right aren’t clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity doesn’t shield them from her claims

McQueen v. Williams

587 So. 2d 918 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1991

The state law and the affidavits submitted by [McQueen] clearly establish that the Sheriff's actions, as done in the totality of circumstances, were totally discretionary. … a claim of violation of clearly established law."

Rockford Life Insurance v. Illinois Department of Revenue

482 U.S. 182 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 8, 1987

Davis is clearly lacking, and its absence is critical in view of the purposes behind the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine. … H — < 1 — i A court must proceed carefully when asked to recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly established.

Garcia v. County of Merced

639 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011

The second question is whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 202. … A plaintiff can sur- vive summary judgment on a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity only “if the plaintiff can both establish a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and establish that, without

Dimitris Desyllas v. Daniel Bernstine Roderic Diman John Fowler Rick Roe

351 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2003

rights were clearly established. … Accordingly, we need not consider the second part of the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional rights were clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Reuter v. City of New Hope

449 N.W.2d 745 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 2, 1990

Although the right to be free from unreasonable seizures is a clearly established right, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a general constitutional violation alone does not dissolve the qualified immunity … The Reuters have presented no violation of a clearly established law. The Reuters assert that the case of Dick v.

Michael Hampton v. State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

Plaintiff’s due process right to familial association with her husband is therefore not “clearly established,” id. at 887 (quotation marks omitted), and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the familial-association … qualified immunity”). ** The Honorable Richard D.

Savard v. State of RI

338 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

Qualified immunity is available to the defendants if, at the time of the alleged violations, the law was not clearly established. See id. … The law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 3.

Grix v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission

821 So. 2d 315 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 22, 2002

The court also found that qualified immunity shielded the officer from. liability under section 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established law concerning proper.net measurements when stopping and detaining appellant … Therefore, Millender did not “clearly establish” the method of measuring such nets.

Brown v. Meda

74 Md. App. 331 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 24, 1988

[emphasis added, bracketed material in original] As was clearly stated by the Court in Moore v. … The emphasized portion of that statement is simply another way of saying that, in a case involving complex medical procedures or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury is not qualified to determine whether

Leonard v. St. Charles County Police Department

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 5, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Further, to overcome qualified immunity, precedent must have clearly established that each Individual Defendant’s own actions “in the particular circumstances” at issue violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

SWEENEY v. MULL

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 11, 2022

Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129–31 (1997) (prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity for preparing and filing documents, but not for personally swearing to the truth of facts establishing probable cause, which was the function … Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissal at pleading stage on qualified immunity grounds is often inappropriate because qualified immunity "usually depends" on the facts of the case).

Hubbard v. Stout

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2018

Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Jones v. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

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

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

A. D. v. State of Calif. Highway Patrol

712 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 2013

The Court then rejected the notion that the law, defined at such a level of generality, was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Markgraf is not entitled to qualified immunity, because Plaintiffs have shown that he violated the foregoing clearly established law.

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

Apothio, LLC v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

immunity. … that was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s alleged 14 misconduct).

Klindtworth v. Burkett

477 N.W.2d 176 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1991

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … When a court is faced with a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether or not the alleged conduct of the defendant was violative of "clearly established" law.