Case law

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

Fancher v. Barrientos

723 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Barrientos asserts he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … Accordingly, the district court, in evaluating Barrientos’s assertion of qualified immunity, did not err in concluding Barrientos violated clearly established law when he fired shots two through seven.

Earles v. Perkins

788 N.E.2d 1260 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Government officials are 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 … have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of the clearly-established law and the information that the arresting officer possessed"). 9 The Appellants also assert that Earles and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity

Walter Melton v. David Abston

841 F.3d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

Qualified Immunity 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 reasonable … Sullivan is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mercado v.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas v. Margulis

88 S.W.3d 641 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1999

Fain, and Kern Wildenthal, M.D., appellants, contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity. … Appellants moved for partial summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, asserting that Margulis did not plead with specificity enough facts to overcome their assertion of qualified immunity.

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

625 F.3d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 3, 2010

Officer Davis moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, claiming that his actions did not violate the constitution and, if they did, that the law was not clearly established at the time. See Aplts. … Clearly Established Denial of qualified immunity is appropriate if the officer violated law that was “clearly established” at the time of his or her conduct. See, e.g., Perez v.

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City

718 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

immunity, which involves both whether there was a constitutional violation and whether the violation was clearly established. … the clearly established law found by the jury.”

Hynson v. City of Chester

827 F.2d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 2, 1987

In reviewing the denial of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, our determination is limited to the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged support a violation of clearly established law: An appellate court … clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Babinski v. Sosnowsky

79 F.4th 515 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 21, 2023

To defeat qualified immunity, Babinski must satisfy the clearly established prong of the analysis. … The district court denied the university and its officials qualified immunity. Id. A panel of this court reversed, explaining that “the ‘sine qua non of the clearly- established inquiry is “fair warning.”’”

Jeffers v. Gomez

267 F.3d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2001

The availability of qualified immunity in such a case naturally turns on whether it' was “clearly established law” that Motive Y was impermissible. … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Kahle v. Leonard

477 F.3d 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

If the right was not clearly established, then the officer is protected by qualified immunity. 1. … Qualified Immunity 37 The second question in the qualified-immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the right that Malone allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Miller v. Wenerowicz

135 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2015

Once a defendant properly raises the defense of qualified- immunity, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of overcoming that defense by showing that the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established right. … But, as indicated above, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must cite to cases or other law that recognize a clearly established right of a prisoner to have his marriage request promptly approved

Eves v. LePage

927 F.3d 575 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Analysis We move directly to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis and ask whether Governor LePage's alleged conduct violated "clearly established" federal … Convinced the defendants' actions, if proven, would violate clearly-established law, the district judge denied them qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Id.

Pinder v. Skero

375 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2019

"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 reasonable person … The Fifth Circuit has explained the "clearly established" prong as follows: Qualified immunity should not be denied unless the law is clear in the more particularized sense that reasonable officials should be "on notice that

Naylor v. State of LA

123 F.3d 855 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 9, 1997

First, the court determines whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, to a given set of facts."14 Accordingly, this case fits squarely within that class of unappealable, fact-based qualified immunity orders contemplated by

Swann v. City of Dallas

922 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 12, 1996

Public officials, however, are not shielded by qualified immunity if their conduct violates clearly-established constitutional rights, if a reasonable person would have known that such conduct was unconstitutional. … Finally, to satisfy the third part of the qualified immunity test, the plaintiff must establish that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in fight of the legal rules clearly established at the time the actions

Bolanos v. Bain

696 So. 2d 478 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no “clearly established … For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

Russell v. Lazar

300 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 27, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants argue that even if the complaint states claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … 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