Case law

Payne v. Breuer

891 S.W.2d 200 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1994

In the case under submission, Breuer chose the latter and attempted to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, we hold that Breuer’s actions were not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Therefore, Breuer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Cecilia Perry v. Jermanda Adams

993 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 5, 2021

Because Adams’s conduct did not violate the detainee’s clearly established rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we reverse. … Because Adams is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity, she is immune from suit under § 1983 unless her actions violated constitutional or statutory rights that were clearly established at the time of

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.

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.

Jose Peroza-Benitez v. Darren Smith

994 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 8, 2021

Haser and Officer White were entitled to qualified immunity because Peroza-Benitez’s constitutional rights at issue were not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. … At summary judgment, the burden is on the officer to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity. Halsey, 750 F.3d at 288.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

ASHCROFT lates the Constitution, we should still grant him qualified immunity because that constitutional right was not “clearly established” in March 2003, when al-Kidd was arrested. We disagree. … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

Umar v. Scott

991 S.W.2d 512 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1999

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields individual government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Furthermore, we hold that Appellees’ actions in complying with the policy were objectively reasonable, and Appellees’ have established, as a matter of law, their entitlement to qualified immunity.

McBeth v. Himes

598 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 8, 2010

violated clearly established law.” … Himes contends, however, that even if he possessed a retaliatory motive when he spoke to DHS, he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of

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

Barrett v. Robydek

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2024

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[w]hen a qualified immunity defense is asserted at the pleading stage, we have historically found that the inquiry should be limited to the ‘clearly established’ prong of the analysis if feasible.”

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”).

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.

Thompson v. Douds

852 So. 2d 299 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 18, 2003

Therefore, the trial court found that Thompson had failed to prove that the law was "clearly established." … Therefore, the autopsy report was insufficient to establish a fact question that would defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Id.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.