Case law

Feis v. King County Sheriff's Department

165 Wash. App. 525 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2011

Ed. 2d 836 (2006) (“The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not ‘clearly established’; a quick resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential … established right so as to rebut *551 the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity.

McGarry v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for the Cnty. of Lincoln

294 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2018

The Court concludes that: (i) Wood used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity, because the right was not clearly established; (ii) the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution … Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v.

Rowan County v. Sloas

201 S.W.3d 469 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2006

official immunity; and, for the Jailer and Henderson in their individual capacities, on grounds of qualified official immunity. … THE YANERO TEST FOR QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Under Yanero , public officers and employees are entitled to “qualified official immunity” for negligent conduct when the negligent act or omissions were (1) discretionary acts

Wright v. City Of Philadelphia

409 F.3d 595 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2005

facts showed a violation of `clearly established' law." … violated was clearly established.

Costanich v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previ- ously been clearly established in the civil context.13 [12] A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make

Linn v. Louisiana Workforce Commission

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 10, 2024

Title I of the ADA prohibits states from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee … Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 326 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002) (finding that the Fifth Circuit has “long recognized that Congress has clearly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Title VII”).

Autry v. Western Kentucky University

219 S.W.3d 713 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2007

However, even if an act is discretionary, there is no immunity if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to harm, or if it is committed … Viewed in this light, WKU clearly is entitled to governmental immunity.

United States v. Bennett

868 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 5, 2017

On that basis, we held that the defendant's conviction could not qualify as a conviction for a crime that had as an element the "use . . . of physical force" because the "government ha[d] not established the offense of harmful … If anything, then, the force clause in § 16 would seem to be less clearly encompassing of reckless conduct than the residual clause in § 16.

Brescher v. Pirez

696 So. 2d 370 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 30, 1997

questionable conduct violated clearly established law. … the plaintiff's rights in light of clearly established law.

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

864 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To determine whether Rigney is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine whether the facts within the trial record make out a violation of a constitutional right, and whether that right was clearly established “such

Crystal Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common

971 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 24, 2020

s] of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” … The District Court defined the violative conduct too broadly for qualified immunity purposes. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742 (warning courts not to define clearly established law at “a high level of generality”).

Mark A. Campbell v. Kevin Kallas

936 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

As relevant here, the judge rejected the claim of qualified immunity, concluding that caselaw clearly established a constitutional right to effective medical treatment. We reverse. … Because no case clearly establishes that denying treatment beyond hormone therapy is unconstitu- tional, qualified immunity applies regardless.

Butler Ex Rel. Biller v. Bayer

123 Nev. 450 · Nevada Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

Qualified immunity under federal law In 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions, qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for damages resulting from discretionary acts, so long as those acts do not violate clearly … Here, because the facts as alleged by Butler do not establish any Eighth Amendment violation, a finding of qualified immunity was appropriate under Saucier. 23 Because Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, we need not

James A. Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a.

167 N.H. 59 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified immunity protects police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It is clear from the Supreme Court’s description of the second, “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis that the second step, in turn, has two aspects.

Savage v. State

72 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 1994

We therefore hold that the State is entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the plaintiff relies on the actions of parole officers to establish the State’s liability for negligence under a respondeat superior theory. … Justice Andersen's dissent disputes this characterization of the law in Washington and argues that Guffey, Spurrell and Frost clearly establish that, where an employee has immunity, the State cannot be held liable on a respondeat

Morelli v. Webster

552 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 7, 2009

Qualified Immunity. This case differs from a garden-variety summary judgment case because it involves the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Given this well-settled jurisprudence, there is no legitimate doubt that the right asserted here was clearly established.

Burkes v. Klauser

185 Wis. 2d 308 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1994

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). 5 The standard of objective legal reasonableness used in determining qualified immunity requires the court to focus on the degree to which clearly established case law gives guidance to … When a court decides a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity, it must determine from the complaint whether the plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a claim for a violation of a clearly

Arlane James v. New Jersey State Police

957 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

PAULOS VS. FCH1, LLC

2020 NV 2 · Nevada Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2020

Mahan concluded that Officer Baca was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Paulos v. … Noting the two-prong showing for overcoming qualified immunity—that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established—the Ninth Circuit used its

Leibel v. City of Buckeye

382 F. Supp. 3d 909 · District Court, D. Arizona · Apr 9, 2019

As Officer Grossman correctly states, denial of qualified immunity is only appropriate where an official's conduct violates "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would be aware 'in light … In retrospect, it would have been preferable to provide a comparable level of analysis concerning the clearly-established prong of the qualified-immunity test (which the Court has attempted to supply below).