Case law

Romero v. Bexar County

993 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 9, 2014

Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also a immunity from suit. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Ondrey v. Patterson

884 So. 2d 50 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 27, 2004

Thus, we must determine whether Ondrey has established that the trial court's order constitutes "a violation of a clearly established principle of law that resulted in a miscarriage of justice." Allstate Ins. Co. v. … Qualified immunity applies in situations where the official's conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

Michael Fenwick v. United States

778 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 13, 2015

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the deputies violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. *135 I. … Fenwick’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 225. On appeal, the deputies challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, renewing their assertion of qualified immunity.

Maria Ventura v. Jennifer Rutledge

978 F.3d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity attaches when an [officer’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … The Supreme Court also found that even though the decedent appeared calm and the other woman present did not feel endangered, the shooting officer did not violate clearly established law and was therefore entitled to qualified

Laguerre v. Nevada System of Higher Education

837 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Nevada · Aug 5, 2011

This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … With respect to a qualified immunity claim, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the right claimed was clearly established. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1989).

City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara

911 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Dec 13, 1995

The Court’s definition of good faith is “derived substantially” from the federal qualified immunity law in “section 1983 claims”: Although the cases sometimes refer to the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity, the … “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred.”

Gausvik v. Abbey

126 Wash. App. 868 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Cunningham v. Gates

229 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 31, 2000

In order to decide the qualified immunity claims, we must determine 1) whether non-shooting officers are entitled to qualified immunity because “jamming” does not violate clearly established law, 2) whether council members … are entitled to qualified immunity because a policy of indemnifying officers against punitive damages does not violate clearly established law, and 3) whether City attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity because recommending

Bevill v. Fletcher

26 F.4th 270 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 2022

“Once a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … Whatever one might think about qualified immunity, I think we’re duty bound to say the law is not clearly established when it takes a full-page flow chart to hold otherwise.

Andrea Miller v. Woodston Maddox

866 F.3d 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Lastly, we address Maddox’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at time of the incident

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

199 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

The judgment on the clearly established law, however, is not fully dispositive of the issues raised by appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … was clearly established.”

Estate of Christopher J. Davis v. Juan Ortiz

987 F.3d 635 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2021

Ortiz has appealed from the denial of qualified immunity. … , and (2) that the unlaw- fulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time the officer acted.

Rachel v. City of Mobile

112 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 5, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Moreover, “[t]he law cannot be .established by dieta[, which] is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Santamorena v.

Conde v. Colorado State Department of Personnel

18 Brief Times Rptr. 451 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1994

The plaintiffs complaint must adequately state a claim of violation of clearly established law; if not, a defendant pleading qualified immunity will be entitled to dismissal before discovery commences. Mitchell v. … Once the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff assumes the burden of identifying both the clearly established law that the government official is alleged to have violated and the conduct that violated

Byrd v. Haas

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity for RLUIPA Claims Qualified immunity is unavailable for the RLUIPA claims in this case. … And qualified immunity only applies to claims for money damages, not claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. See Flagner v.

Christopher Stoner v. Eugene Watlingten

735 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Under these principles, we frame the clearly-established question as whether a reasonable officer would have known that he violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by arresting Stoner for violating Ark.

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs

28 Kan. App. 2d 744 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Mar 30, 2001

light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … The holding in Kalina leaves no doubt it was clearly established. Thereafter, a prosecutor is to be charged with knowledge that such an act was unreasonable. Long, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Patton v. Bickford

529 S.W.3d 717 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2016

We also conclude that the Teachers are not immune from suit on the basis of qualified official immunity. … SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS MAKING SCHOOL POLICIES HAVE QUALIFIED OFFICIAL IMMUNITY; TEACHERS IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL POLICIES DO NOT .We begin by more clearly delineating the Estate’s arguments.

Jonathan Jacobson v. James McCormick

763 F.3d 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2014

In his supplemental briefing, Jacobson conceded that we “must address” the issue of qualified immunity, but argued the officers are not entitled to immunity because it was clearly established that strip searches were permissible … McCormick and Voltaire are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the facts taken in the light most favorable to Jacobson establish that the officers violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly

Carswell v. Camp

54 F.4th 307 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 30, 2022

But Carswell says this was “the opposite of a refusal or failure to rule” because the “district court clearly indicated it would timely address Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.” … No. 21-10171 established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”