Case law

The Mercer County Board of Education and Dr. Deborah Akers v. Amanda Shrewsbury

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2024

The respondent further argued that even if the circuit court decided that qualified immunity applied, it was abrogated by the petitioners’ violation of clearly established rights. … “It is well established that claims for both constitutional and common law qualified immunity are available only for the State, its agencies, officials, and/or employees.” Kent, 249 W.

Thomas v. Independence Township

463 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 14, 2006

6 of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Thus, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Palmer, Brady v. Eisenhauer, Scott

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity Officer Pride also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Palmer’s claims because his conduct did not violate a clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Pelerin v. Carlton County

498 N.W.2d 33 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 23, 1993

To avoid dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity, a plaintiff alleging violation of a constitutional right by a public official must allege that the violated right was “clearly established” in a particularized sense. … The law in this area was thus not “clearly established” when Pelerin was fired.

Sapp v. Cunningham

847 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 23, 1994

Was the Law “Clearly Established”? … The critical issue before this Court with respect to qualified immunity is whether it can be said that the defendants’ alleged failures to act violated some clearly established law in existence at that time.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

397 F.3d 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2005

immunity because they violated clearly established law. … It also properly granted qualified immunity to the prison officials on this claim because their actions did not violate clearly established law.

Siehl v. City of Johnstown

365 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … immunity analysis-was there clearly established law-in light of their argument that there was no constitutional violation.

Soto v. Chardon

514 F. Supp. 339 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 7, 1981

This principle will be borne in mind when the qualified immunity issues are considered. (Ill) Qualified Immunity from Damages A. … Liability The nature of the qualified immunity defense at common law and in § 1983 cases has been judicially established commencing with Scheuer v.

Iqbal v. Hasty

490 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 18, 2007

A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established … clearly established law.”

Ernest Foster, Sr. v. Jeremy Hellawell

908 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2018

In deciding such legal claims, we apply the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity standard. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Mosby v. Moore

716 So. 2d 551 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1998

Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claims. … He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 1. Official Capacity ¶ 30.

WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. The Estate of COdy Lawrence Grove

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2020

that he engaged in any act or omission related to the suicide of the Estate’s decedent that established the violation of a clearly established right. … 17 This Court has established numerous steps that must be examined in order to find whether qualified immunity protections apply in a particular case.

Arnette Rodgers v. 36th District Court

529 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2013

Katz, the Supreme Court established a two-step inquiry for determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … clearly established law at the time that it was committed.

Truelove v. Hunt

67 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 29, 1999

After this finding, the Court addressed the qualified immunity question of whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident. … However, the precise contours of the right are not clearly established. See id.

Panagoulakos v. Yazzie

741 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2013

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … In short, Officer Yazzie is entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after the traffic stop. REVERSED. .

Grice v. McVeigh

873 F.3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim. … Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Collins v. Ainsworth

382 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Clearly established Fourteenth Amendment law.

Daniel Mook v. G. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 4, 2026

The district court assumed that qualified immunity is a defense to an FMLA interference claim but denied Hall’s motion because it concluded that federal regulations clearly established Mook’s right to an … In other words, the denial of qualified immunity turned on a pure issue of law: whether the FMLA regulations clearly established Mook’s right to a cure period in these circumstances.

Turpin v. Ray

319 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

"clearly established" under the circumstances. … Callahan , Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle , 819 F.Supp.2d 23 , 28-29 (D.D.C. 2011).