Case law

Staneart v. Board of Trustees of Ransom Memorial Hospital

684 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 18, 1988

Staneart responds that qualified immunity is inapplicable because clearly established law proscribed the defendants’ conduct. As stated above, the court will consider this motion as a motion for summary judgment. … If the plaintiff fails to convince the court that the law was clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment must be entered in his favor. Burk v.

Dunlap v. Hilgenkamp

82 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 25, 2000

. § 1983 for their performance of discretionary functions are entitled to a qualified immunity defense if they prove that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is a question of law.

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity

Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles

560 F.3d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 24, 2009

established due process right. … established right.

Chappell v. City of Cleveland

585 F.3d 901 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 4, 2009

Plaintiff Chappell correctly points out that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is not based on a pure question of law, but on two clearly identified factual issues. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Maurice Hardaway v. Brett Meyerhoff

734 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2013

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officers from liability for actions taken in the course of their official duties if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

Harrod v. Caney

547 S.W.3d 536 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Feb 23, 2018

Harrod filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing the claims against him are barred by absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Coroners are entitled to qualified immunity both by statute and pursuant to common law.

Bailey ex rel. K.A. v. Preston

702 F. App'x 210 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 13, 2017

The instant defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their use of force was “objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time the challenged conduct occurred.” 13 “[Wjhile the right to *213 be … Appellants' entire argument on this second prong of the qualified immunity test is that ‘it is clearly established in the law that citizens are protected against unjustified, excessive police force.'

Darlene M. Kesinger v. Thomas Herrington

381 F.3d 1243 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2004

Excessive Force & Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … He did not violate the Constitution or any clearly established law. He is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Gomes v. Wood

451 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 27, 2006

Annes did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable official would have known, she and the other defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. BACKGROUND A. … “[W ]here the right is clearly established, a defendant should only rarely be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2.

Dorwart v. Caraway

290 Mont. 196 · Montana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, the plaintiffs have to prove a negative in order to establish that they had a right which the majority initially concedes is clearly established. ¶ 148 I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Brophy … The majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Brophy and Stillwater County is based on the same unsound conclusion on which its qualified immunity decision is based — i.e., that Dorwart had no clearly established right

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.

Cosme-Rosado v. Serrano-Rodriguez

196 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 22, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Assuming, arguendo, that Serrano’s actions are not covered by absolute immunity, he would still enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for money damages. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Mary Jo. Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton

10 F.4th 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Bailey v. … In other words, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time. See Helm, 989 F.3d at 1272.

Serra v. United States General Services Administration

664 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1987

The standard is an objective one: “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ … Thus, for Diamond and Ink to be stripped of their qualified immunity from suit, it must have been clearly established at the time they acted that Serra possessed a cognizable constitutional liberty or property interest in

Williams v. City of Yazoo

41 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

III Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Ct. 9, 11 (2021), but we have seen cases like this before. 6 The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity but did not address whether the law was clearly established.

Boyd v. District of Columbia

526 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2007

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Thus the right is not clearly established, and Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity from this claim. Accordingly, the court dismisses the plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

Prokop v. City of Los Angeles

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2007

—In Carroll, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 , the court held that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of section 831.4. … We have already disposed of this argument: Government Code section 815, subdivision (b), clearly provides that the liability of a public entity established by “this part”—which includes the section 815.6 liability for failure

Spooner v. Phoenix

246 Ariz. 119 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 27, 2018

To the extent these actions violate clearly established law or reflect a reckless disregard of Spooner’s rights, they are afforded no protection. … But to the extent Brown’s actions reflect the legitimate exercise of professional judgment, they are discretionary and protected by qualified immunity.