Case law

Williams v. Vannoy

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 19, 2023

Reinert, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation, 111 CAL. L. REV. 201 (2023). Restored to its proper place, this clause “unequivocally negate[s] the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity.” See Rogers v. … Plaintiff has also carried his burden to show that the law was clearly established at the time Lt. Col. Knight and Capt.

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … 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

Lynch v. Ackley

811 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 2016

Held, the district court erred in 24 denying qualified immunity because there was no clearly established precedent at the time of the 25 defendant’s conduct that her conduct violated constitutional norms. … immunity because of the absence of clearly settled law to that effect at the time of the conduct.

Henry v. Dinelle

929 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 8, 2013

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) ("Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless … Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 169-70 (2d Cir.2007) ("[Ejven 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

Timothy Raimey v. City of Niles, Ohio

77 F.4th 441 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.” Quigley v. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Freddy Nobriga Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands

129 Haw. 123 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2013

) on the basis of qualified immunity. … Courts must analyze claims of qualified immunity under two prongs: (1) whether the facts show a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if the first step is satisfied, whether that right was clearly established at the

James Solomon v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas

795 F.3d 777 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2015

In this appeal, Jones and Thomas argue that the district court should have granted qualified immunity because the facts, as pleaded by Solomon, do not show a violation of clearly established rights. … of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery."

Shoemaker v. Smith

353 Md. 143 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 10, 1999

'abstract issu[e] of law’ relating to qualified immunity ... … —typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established. ..

A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department

928 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

P. 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. … In other words, “[g]eneral statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”

Nilesh S. Patel v. James Smith

969 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

qualified immunity. … immunity—that is, whether the right that Patel alleges was clearly established.

Summerville v. City of Forest Park

128 Ohio St. 3d 221 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2010

Chapter 2744 or another provision of the law, including federal qualified immunity. … immunity if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Galante v. County of Nassau

186 Misc. 2d 733 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2000

if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established … [their] acts [do] not violate these clearly established rights.’ ” (Tenenbaum, at 596.)

Kerr v. Puckett

967 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · May 21, 1997

Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ). … Consequently, these Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Kerr’s suit for damages on his Establishment Clause claims.

Jennings v. Hinkle

115 N.M. 387 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1993

We hold that the officers did not violate clearly established law and, thus, had qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability. Accordingly, we affirm. … They retain the shield of qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Arcoren v. Peters

627 F. Supp. 1513 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Feb 13, 1986

The qualified immunity defense applies equally to RzVews-styled constitutional tort actions and cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Butz, 438 U.S. at 500-01 , 98 S.Ct. at 2907-08 . Clearly Established Rights. … Having violated no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants must be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. 1 .

Petzak v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections

579 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2008

Dobel’s motion (# 18) for summary judgment raises only the issue of qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity and Money Damages Qualified immunity is a valid defense for a public official in an action for damages. … right in question was clearly established in the specific context of the case.

Walker v. Corizon Health

947 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 14, 2020

This court may choose to address either of the two qualified-immunity requirements first because, if “the plaintiff fails to establish either prong of the two-pronged qualified immunity standard, the defendant prevails on … immunity, the complaint must allege specific facts showing each defendant violated the defendant’s clearly established constitutional rights).

Booth v. City of Dallas

312 F.R.D. 427 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 18, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … That is, even if a government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is entitled to immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See Davis v.

Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

89 F.4th 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm v.

John Wayne Charleston v. Clint Allen, Criminal District Attorney of Cass County

420 S.W.3d 134 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Oct 15, 2012

—Tyler 1996, no writ) (prosecutor entitled only to qualified immunity in making statements to press). 5 Under the federal standards for qualified immunity, a prosecutor would be “shielded 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.”