Case law

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Therefore, the defendants were entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Kipps, 197 F.3d at 768.

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.

Schatz Schatz Family v. Gierer

346 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2003

Where jurisdiction is appropriate, the scope of appeal is limited to the narrow issue of whether plaintiffs have alleged a violation of "clearly established" law. See Johnson v. … Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). 4 The district court announced the proper standard for addressing qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage — whether immunity is established on the

Pinter v. City of New York

710 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2010

Once we determine whether the right at issue was clearly established for the particular context that the officer faced, the qualified immunity inquiry is complete. … Pinter’s Right Was Clearly Established “For a constitutional right to be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the ‘contours of the right must be sufficiently

Norman Slattery v. Christopher Rizzo

939 F.2d 213 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 25, 1991

For the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity the plaintiff’s rights must be clearly established under the particular circumstances confronting the official at the time of the questioned … The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right. Ibid.

Richardson v. Quitman County

912 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2012

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Mason violated clearly established law, and Mason is entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the stop. 14 ii. … establish law in this Circuit for purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Smith v. Lee

73 F.4th 376 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

of clearly established law.” … Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Floyd B. Hutton, Anna v. Hutton v. Sheriff Thomas Strickland, Individually and as Sheriff of Holmes County, Florida

919 F.2d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 1990

The qualified immunity shield protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The district court’s order denies summary judgment on qualified immunity as follows: Qualified Immunity.

Dustin Burnikel v. Michael Fong

886 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2018

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. Harlow v. … We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Fong and Wessels.

F. Buddie Contracting, Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Community College District

31 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 21, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability or civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, it is clear that the existence of an authorizing state law does not alter the qualified immunity analysis.

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

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

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.

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.

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.”’”

Matthew Robinson v. Stewart Condley

791 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2015

was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Matthew argues Trooper Condley is not entitled to qualified immunity because case law clearly established at the time of the incident that an officer may be liable for failing to intervene to prevent the use of excessive

Doll v. Pennsylvania State Police

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2025

Doll responds that Trooper Tremaine’s conduct violates clearly established law and thus Trooper Tremaine’s actions cannot be protected by qualified immunity. (Doc. 36, at 12-15). … “In light of a clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity when the reasonableness of the force used is factually disputed.” Guthrie v. Guthrie, 216 F. Supp. 3d 590, 596 (W.D.

Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr.

347 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 28, 2018

Government officials invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves "from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." 12 "For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of that right must be sufficiently

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.

Zion v. Nassan

727 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 23, 2010

The next step in the qualified immunity analysis requires the court to “consider whether the right was clearly established.” McKee v. … . *403 The court of appeals concluded “that a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Id.