Case law

Eilenfeldt ex rel. J.M. v. United C.U.S.D. 304 Board of Education

169 F. Supp. 3d 867 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for their actions in the course of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, once a claim of qualified immunity has been raised, a plaintiff also bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 17, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune if the actions complained of were taken in good faith in the performance of one's duties, and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer

864 F.3d 920 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2017

right was so ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct was unlawful.” … established,” fulfilling part of the qualified immunity test.

Armstrong v. City of Melvindale

432 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

But where, as here, Defendants do not dispute the facts—they claim instead that the alleged facts do not reflect a violation of clearly established law—“a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity . . . is … right was clearly established.”

Caldwell v. LeFaver

928 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 1991

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, social workers are shielded from liability where their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … However, assuming such a right was clearly established in April 1987, we do not think that it vitiates the application of qualified immunity here.

Philip R. Plant v. Morton International, Inc.

212 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 12, 2000

The ADA Claim In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Plant must show 1) that he is disabled; 2) that he is otherwise qualified for his previous position with Morton, with or without reasonable … Although the evidence did not clearly indicate that Plant’s condition was temporary, Plant was unable to come forward with any evidence that it was permanent, and the mere possibility of recurrence is not sufficient to establish

Carter v. Broome County

District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 21, 2019

Supp. 3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding clearly established for qualified immunity purposes the "broader right to be free from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" and applying it to pre-trial detainee). … True or not, qualified immunity would not attach to those facts.

Golodner v. Berliner

770 F.3d 196 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

the clearly established law.” … Few issues related to qualified immunity have caused more ink to be spilled than whether a particular right has been clearly established, mainly because courts must calibrate, on a case- by-case basis, how generally or

Meek, Brandon v. Brock, Chase

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 26, 2023

Third, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … That made defendants’ continued use of force against him—including the taser— reasonable, or at least covered by qualified immunity.

Henry H. Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee, and Robert R. Perez

345 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2003

The Court observed: Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. … Qualified Immunity We review de novo Perez’s qualified immunity claim. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2000).

Erickson v. County of Clay

451 N.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Feb 27, 1990

; and that neither Mickelberg and Shoop nor Costello are entitled to any qualified immunity because their conduct in participating in the grand jury deliberations was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established norms. … the media was unreasonable and clearly exceeded established legal norms.

Max Ross v. Ed Hinton, Jr.

937 F.2d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). 8 Ross argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. We disagree. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (state officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known).

Sturdivant v. Fine

22 F.4th 930 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 7, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … Sch., 321 F.3d 1285, 1288–89 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s claim of sexual harassment because the right had been clearly established in employment

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Nov 3, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

State ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources v. Kaufman

203 W. Va. 56 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Mata v. Anderson

760 F. Supp. 2d 1068 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 24, 2009

Clearly Established Law. … Moreover, he does not enjoy qualified immunity, because retaliatory prosecution has been clearly established as a constitutional violation, and the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, if taken as true, establish such

Jerome Yates, Jameela Yates v. City of Cleveland, Sanford L. Currie, Officer

941 F.2d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1991

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear

Noyes v. Moccia, et al.

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 24, 1999

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 … would violate plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.

BROWN v. ROBINETT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 19, 2021

"Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Fleming v. … Clearly, an entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be established by the mere incantation of magic words, purportedly buttressed by endless pages of quotes relating to the doctrine. Arguably, Ms.

State Ex Rel. Wilhoit v. Seay

248 S.W.3d 135 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2008

Again, both Jones and Walker are public officials entitled to qualified immunity unless their immunity was lost through conduct violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person … Wood, therefore, has failed to allege facts that adequately prove that Jones and Walker lost their qualified immunity by violating a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.