Case law

Cathy Neely, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Stephen Feinstein, Defendants-Appellants-Cross

50 F.3d 1502 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 3, 1995

Defendant Feinstein The district court concluded that Feinstein was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that hospital officials must ensure their patients’ safety, and that the record … Was the Law Clearly Established?

Thomas ex rel. D.T. v. City of New Orleans

883 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Aug 2, 2012

The City Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because the Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a Violation of a Clearly Established Constitutional Right. … The plaintiffs have cited no law to suggest that this conduct violated a clearly established right that would overcome Officer Boyd's invocation of qualified immunity. .

Barham v. Ramsey

338 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2004

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established … This lack of clearly established law is relevant both to determining the “reasonableness” of an officer’s actions and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Torre S. Crockett Dushon L. Greene v. Cumberland College Michael B. Colegrove K. David Kersey, City of Williamsburg, Kentucky Don Hamlin

316 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 13, 2003

Qualified Immunity In civil suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages, qualified immunity protects a public official from being sued as long as the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … , Hamlin would be entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable officer would know that Hamlin’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established federal right.

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.

Bruce Anderson v. State of Texas

913 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2019

Qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” 7 To overcome a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity on summary judgment, “a plaintiff must show that the evidence … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation, we end our inquiry and reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the individual- capacity claim. 25

Bennett v. Murphy

127 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2000

Murphy’s Invocation of Qualified Immunity As is well established, qualified immunity is a doctrine that insulates the holder from trial, not just from liability. … Felsing: We thus hold, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter , that in deciding whether defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of “clearly established law” that is for

Omasta v. Bedingfield

689 So. 2d 409 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 7, 1997

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary *410 functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Florida Supreme Court has furthermore recognized that the qualified immunity of public officials involves " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Tucker v.

Crawford v. Geiger

996 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2014

/A 4 The Sixth Circuit has summarized the doctrine of qualified immunity and related principles: Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established … Even if there is such right, they argue, that right has yet to be clearly established, so the doctrine of qualified immunity entitles the on scene officers, even if they impaired any such right, to dismissal. i.

Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

370 S.C. 362 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Aug 28, 2006

Causation-in-fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligence, and legal cause is proved by establishing foreseeability. Id. … or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify.”

Albright v. Rodriguez

51 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1995

Defendant contends he was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show he violated clearly established law. … Further, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show that the law was clearly established. See, e.g., Pallottino v.

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

Carolyn Clanton v. Jody Cooper

129 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 17, 1997

Such immunity is “qualified” in that it does not obtain when otherwise immune officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; Gehl Group v. … If these facts, taken together, do not amount to “coercion” under 'Clearly established law, then Cooper is entitled to qualified immunity.

Daniczek v. Spencer

156 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jan 11, 2016

In sum, “[qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . … Spencer violated a clearly established rule.

Maestas v. State of Colorado

351 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that [his] conduct violated that right.” … Maestas possesses a clearly established right to be free of such harassment. Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun.

Cottrell v. Caldwell

85 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 3, 1996

An example of such an issue is "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant … whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established."

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Jonathan Large

18 F.4th 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 24, 2021

We thus find that there was no clearly established right, and we therefore conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Large on the basis of qualified immunity. … We have “held that an official acting outside the clearly established ‘scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.’” Johnson 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.

Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University

132 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 16, 2015

is that government officials sued in their personal capacities for violations of federal rights are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is equally clear, of course, that a “materially similar” set of facts is not necessary to establish law clearly for qualified immunity purposes. See Hope v.

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields 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 … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.