Case law

Engesser v. Fox

District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at … Second, the court must “ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A negative outcome to either inquiry results in qualified immunity for the official. Pearson v.

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

Sawyer v. County of Creek

908 F.2d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 1990

Ramirez argues that Leona Sawyer has pled insufficient facts to overcome Ramirez’s absolute and qualified immunity from suit. 1 We turn first to Ramirez’s claim of qualified immunity. … Unlike other affirmative defenses, qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability; it is also an immunity from suit.

Ireland v. Tunis

907 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 1995

Alternatively, Defendants contend that they should prevail as a matter of law even if they are entitled only to qualified immunity for their acts, because those acts did not violate any “clearly established rights” of the … The Court reiterated that qualified immunity rests upon “objective legal reasonableness,” and stated that allegedly unlawful official action must be “assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at

Howard v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2022

Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 2015) (“It is well established that ‘municipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.’” (quoting Owen v. … Serrano and Vieira overstate the scope of any potential qualified immunity. See Pelletier, 516 U.S. at 312. Serrano was denied qualified immunity for allegedly conducting an unreasonable strip search.

Vargas-Badillo v. Diaz-Torres

114 F.3d 3 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 30, 1997

The Qualified Immunity Standard A. … of clearly established law, was met.

Estate of Garcia Toribio v. City of Santa Rosa

381 F. Supp. 3d 1179 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 4, 2019

The qualified immunity doctrine shields a government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if the officer's conduct does not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional … See Sheehan , 135 S.Ct. at 1776 (questioning without deciding whether "a controlling circuit precedent could constitute clearly established federal law in these circumstances" for purposes of Section 1983 qualified immunity

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.

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.

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

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

117 F. Supp. 3d 1220 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 17, 2015

Bader are trying to suggest that district courts should, whenever possible, decide qualified immunity on the clearly established prong. … The Supreme Court established the qualified immunity defense in Pierson v.

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.

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

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

Flanagan v. Scearce

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 23, 2021

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 would have … clearly established law”); Graves 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

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.