Case law

Rand v. Lavoie

2017 DNH 177 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 5, 2017

Legal Standard To overcome Lavoie’s qualified immunity defense, Rand must show that Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity attaches unless Lavoie “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (citation omitted).

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 28, 2008

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which … Qualified immunity shields an officer if a reasonable officer could have believed the action to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. Hunter v.

Montanez v. Celaya

49 F. Supp. 3d 1010 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory … However, the Eleventh Circuit found that the police officer in question was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of McClish’s arrest, the law was not clearly established.

Micah Jessop v. City of Fresno

918 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 20, 2019

ANALYSIS “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 of which a … Assuming that to be true, however, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Jaeger v. Wracker

21 Ohio App. 3d 150 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1985

Fitzgerald (1982), 457 U.S. 800 , 818-819: “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … fireman, the trustees cannot claim a qualified immunity.

City of Palestine v. Ramirez

925 S.W.2d 250 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Jan 26, 1996

In her response to the motion for summary judgment Ramirez asserted, inter alia, that the summary judgment evidence was insufficient to establish all of the elements of qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; the burden is on the defendant to establish each element of that defense. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1994); Rhodes v.

John Benavidez v. County of San Diego

993 F.3d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 12, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … For a court to determine that a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983, there must be a constitutional violation on the facts alleged, and the constitutional right violated must be “clearly established

G-69 v. Degnan

745 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

Qualified Immunity With respect to qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that defendants violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The complete lack of any analogous case requires this court to find that defendants’ conduct was not so unreasonable in light of clearly established law as to vitiate their qualified immunity.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

664 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 1987

Furthermore, he contends that the individual defendants cannot avail themselves of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity because their conduct constituted a violation of clearly established constitutional rights. … They also contend that the law regarding arrests for disorderly conduct was not clearly established at the time they arrested McGaughey so they are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v.

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

DeWald v. Wyner

674 So. 2d 836 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 15, 1996

It is well settled that public officials are immune in their individual capacities from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In this case immunity turns on the second element, namely whether defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional law. If applicable law is unsettled, immunity necessarily results. Nicholson v.

Wayne Thomas Ahlers and Nina Ahlers v. Ronald J. Schebil

188 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 30, 1999

Qualified Immunity Next, Plaintiffs contend on appeal that, regardless of this panel’s conclusions as to whether Wayne Ahlers’s arrest was supported by probable cause, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because … There are really two separate inquiries here: whether the Washtenaw County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and whether Parsons is entitled to qualified immunity.

Dollar Loan Center of SD v. Bret Afdahl

933 F.3d 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 2019

“Absent either a clearly established right or a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies.” Dillard v. … In a qualified immunity analysis, “a right is ‘clearly established’ if the ‘contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’”

Kimberly Burns-Fisher v. Anna Romero-Lehrer

57 F.4th 421 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 13, 2023

Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2001) (“A district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because qualified immunity confers immunity … Because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that a defendant’s failure to act gives rise to a state-created danger claim, we conclude that Appellant is entitled to qualified immunity

Edwards v. Williams

170 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 31, 2001

The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as the complaint does not plead any alleged conduct that violated clearly and particularly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … Because the plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Was the Right Clearly Established?

Danese v. Asman

670 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 16, 1987

The Court in Anderson also held that the mere assertion of a clearly established right, at least in the context of the fourth amendment, is insufficient to defeat the qualified immunity defense. … Qualified immunity is not applicable.

Czechorowski v. State

178 Vt. 524 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Mar 22, 2005

Supp. 2d 241, 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (caseworker who relied on autistic child’s allegations of sexual abuse through FC did not violate dearly established standard and therefore was entitled to qualified immunity). … See Cook, 167 Vt. at 509 , 712 A.2d at 384 (analyzing official’s conduct in relation to clearly established law). ¶ 27.

TATTNALL COUNTY Et Al. v. ARMSTRONG

333 Ga. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 13, 2015

IX establishes a different type of immunity, known as official or qualified immunity when an officer or an employee of the state is sued in his individual capacity. 6 Banks v. Happoldt, 271 Ga. … Armstrong clearly had the burden to establish waiver. As we have previously explained, “[sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection.

Bonett v. Gualtieri

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 29, 2022

denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” … was clearly established at the time of Cook’s alleged misconduct.

Tyrone Hadley v. Keith Mihail Billiris and Montgomery County, Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · Jul 14, 2022

Billiris argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Hadley failed to cite any evidence showing that he intentionally struck Hadley, point to any clearly established law prohibiting an officer from chasing … To rebut the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish “that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness