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.

United States v. Jeffrey Lynn Franklin

235 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 20, 2000

establish” that the predicate conviction qualified under § 924(e). … While in some cases a sentencing court properly might cumulate documentation of prior criminal convictions to find that such documentation “clearly establishes” a prior criminal conviction, in the context of an enhancement

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.

Zulema Longoria v. San Benito Indep Con Sch Dist

942 F.3d 258 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 4, 2019

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … We therefore turn to the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis and find that, regardless of whether M.L.’s rights were violated, the right at issue was not clearly established. See Davis v.

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

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.

Tuskan v. Jackson County

134 F. Supp. 3d 1041 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 25, 2015

Legal Standard The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from civil liability for damages based upon the performance of discretionary functions if the officials’ actions did not violate clearly established … Thornton is Entitled to Qualified Immunity With Respect to Tuskan’s False Arrest Claim Tuskan’s claim for false arrest derives from his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures of his

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

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.

Odhuno v. Reed's Cove Health & Rehab., LLC

355 F. Supp. 3d 1026 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 14, 2018

Thus, Mallen does not support a clearly established constitutional right that defeats Rose and Sunderraj's claims of qualified immunity. … The Court next examines the second prong of qualified immunity-whether the law was clearly established.

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

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police Department

797 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2015

‘clearly established.’” … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 1776.

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

Raymond Barton v. Sheldon Neeley

114 F.4th 581 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

If the public-official defendant did not violate a constitutional right, or if he did but the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, then the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court denied qualified immunity because it was “clearly established that the First Amendment protect[s] a citizen’s decision both as to what to say and  No. 23-2089 Barton v.

Amy Hughes v. Andrew Kisela

841 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer

Montez v. Romer

32 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 21, 1999

Further, defendants contend that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that either the … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under section 1983 where their actions do not violate clearly established statutory