Case law

City of Dallas v. Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc.

883 S.W.2d 374 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 18, 1994

If a police officer is immune from tort liability under the qualified immunity doctrine, the city is also immune. City of Houston v. Newsom, 858 S.W.2d 14, 19 (Tex.App. … My actions were consistent with State law and departmental regulations, and I did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

Division of Employment Security v. Board of Police Commissioners

864 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

The Officers “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Our prior cases have clearly established that use of [a] taser on a nonfleeing, nonviolent suspected misdemeanant [is] unreasonable.” Brossart v.

Watson v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

80 F. Supp. 2d 1175 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … In arguing against qualified immunity, plaintiffs do not cite a single case which establishes that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established procedural due process rights.

Peggy Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, Mississip

905 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

The resolution of this case turns primarily on whether these rights were clearly established, so we will begin with that step of the qualified immunity analysis. … established law. 60 He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 61 C.

William Meyers, Sr. v. Baltimore County, Maryland

713 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 1, 2013

Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We repeatedly have held that it is not required that a right violated already have been recognized by a court in a specific context before such right may be held "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Meyer v. State

292 Or. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 5, 2018

immunity on those claims, because none of those rights were clearly established. … The right in question was clearly established at the relevant time. As a result, Niswender and Sugahara were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Keys Youth Services, Inc. v. City of Olathe, Kan.

38 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 23, 1999

“If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.” Mick v. … Even if so, the law on this point is not clearly established and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any such claim. B.

Walter Franklin, II v. Lucas Peterson

878 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2017

DISCUSSION This is an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity as to Officers Peterson and Meath, a doctrine that “shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates ’clearly established statutory … In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, we have authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.

Patricia MacIntosh v. Ron Clous

69 F.4th 309 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 31, 2023

Whether the Right Was Clearly Established The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was “clearly established such ‘that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing … Taken as true, MacIntosh’s allegations plausibly show that Clous is not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that Clous’s conduct violated MacIntosh’s First Amendment rights.

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.

Ronald Kramer v. Mary Cullinan

878 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity. … Cullinan’s actions violated a “clearly established” right. White, 137 S. Ct at 552. III. CONCLUSION Dr. Cullinan was entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

Tanya Martin v. City of Broadview Heights

712 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 9, 2013

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.’” … The sources of clearly established law to be considered are limited.

Gallaher v. Goldsmith

213 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 2002

When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights … Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”

Duncan v. City of Sandy Springs

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2020

was clearly established when the violation occurred. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant violated clearly established law. See Johnson v. Conway, 688 F. App’x 700, 706 (11th Cir. 2017).

Colston v. Ala. Agric. & Mech. Univ. (In re Hugine)

256 So. 3d 30 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 17, 2017

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson [v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635 ,] 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 [ (1987) ]." Pearson v. … "Because pre-existing law did not provide fair warning to Appellees that demoting Rioux under these circumstances would violate clearly established federal law, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity."

Feltman v. Europe

District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 18, 2022

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the law was clearly established at the relevant time. Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). … According to the Tenth Circuit, “[i]n 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.

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.

Wallace v. King

626 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 1, 1980