Case law

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

297 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2012

Therefore, when the immunity granted in MCL 333.26424(a) is read in context with MCL 333.26422(b) and (c), it is plain that the immunity was not intended to exempt qualified medical-marijuana users from federal prosecutions … The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

Deavers v. Vasquez

57 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 5, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 358 (4th Cir.2010). *607 “The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for féar of allowing plaintiffs ‘to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into

Bartell v. Lohiser

12 F. Supp. 2d 640 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 1, 1998

whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiff has failed to show that defendants violated a clearly established right of which they should have known. 4

Ken Mouille, Laurie Rollins v. City of Live Oak

918 F.2d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law. … Unit A Jan. 1981) were clearly established law in this circuit.

Victor Perez v. James Cox

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 16, 2019

The Clearly Established Right The second part of the qualified immunity test requires that the constitutional right that has been violated was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity analysis.3 And at prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, the majority points to no authority clearly establishing that the Use of Force Regulation actually promulgated by the Nevada Department of

Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corp. of America v. Kentucky, Finance & Administration Cabinet

403 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 10, 2005

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … If the law was not clearly established, the defendants may be protected from suit by qualified immunity as they could not have known that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.

Sean Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III

749 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2014

(explaining that to survive a qualified-immunity claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the “violation . . . of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known” (internal … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that when officers violated rights that were clearly established, officers were not entitled to public officers’ immunity from North

McCranie v. Gavinski

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 24, 2024

Defendants provide no legal authority in support of their proposition that clearly established law for qualified immunity must originate from a case at the same procedural posture. … was clearly established”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Sergeant Acuna and Sergeant Gutierrez are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s first claim.

Keli Calderone v. City of Chicago

979 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2020

has not clearly established that right. … Qualified Immunity Public officials enjoy immunity from civil liability for con- duct that “[1] does not violate [2] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Mountain Pure v. Cynthia Roberts

814 F.3d 928 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 25, 2016

"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 known … Moreover, Mountain Pure -5- cites no authority showing that the agents violated its clearly established rights as it must to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.

Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

284 Conn. 91 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 2, 2007

pursuant to section 10-16n [which allows the establishment of grant programs to assist local boards of education establishing extended day Head Start programs]”). … “[A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act ... .

Columbian Financial Corporation v. Stork

811 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 26, 2016

Thull enjoy qualified immunity on this claim because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. … For qualified immunity, however, the question is whether that constitutional requirement was clearly established.

DiStiso ex rel. DiStiso v. Cook

691 F.3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 2012

The Qualified Immunity Defense 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 … immunity because no such rule of law was clearly established at times relevant to plaintiffs claim.

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to 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

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State Univ.

873 So. 2d 970 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 2004

The test for qualified immunity is two fold, with the threshold question being whether the plaintiff has suffered a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.'

Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity “raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com- plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu- tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001

Lopera v. Town of Coventry

640 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 20, 2011

The Doctrine of 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 finding that a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is sufficient to warrant a finding of qualified immunity. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 822 .

Mark Nieters v. Brandon Holtan

83 F.4th 1099 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 11, 2023

; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.” … As the court recognizes, even if a police officer violates a federal right, he is still entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established. District of Columbia v.

Morrison v. Board of Trustees of Green Tp.

583 F.3d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 8, 2009

This right was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes at the time of Amanda’s seizure on October 30, 2002. See id. at 641 . … Violation of Clearly Established Right Officer Celender finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, even if he *408 violated Amanda’s constitutional rights, because it was not clearly established at the time

Dunn v. McFeeley

127 N.M. 513 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1999

The issue on appeal with respect to § 1983 is whether the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that their alleged misconduct had not been “clearly established” in 1994 to be contrary to … Such a person, however, is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless at the time of the alleged misconduct it was “clearly established” that the misconduct violated federal law. See Yount v.