Case law

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

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

Adeline Lennon v. Chief William P. Miller, the City of Troy, Patrolman Donald J. Backaus, and Patrolman Peter Gordon

66 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1995

’s clearly established constitutional rights. … his ... actions did not violate any of those clearly established rights.

Nicholas C. Wade v. Solomon Daniels

36 F.4th 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2022

medical needs—which, as addressed in the following sections, he cannot—qualified immunity applies because Wade failed to show that the defendants violated clearly established law. … Because there is no clearly established law that placed Investigators Daniels, Jones, and Wilson on notice that their actions violated Wade’s constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s medical

PALMIERI VS. CLARK CO.

2015 NV 102 · Nevada Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2015

Ct. 305, 308 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established .. … A searching officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information

Krout v. Goemmer

583 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 6, 2009

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … That is the ‘clearly established’ law.

Duffie v. Wichita County

990 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2013

immunity analysis and asks whether, nevertheless, qualified immunity is appropriate because the Officer Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable “in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question … As already stated, qualified immunity is a defense available to public officials performing discretionary functions “... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

City of Phoenix v. Superior Court

180 Ariz. 472 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 4, 1994

The agents asserted qualified immunity as a defense. … the defendant’s version of the facts, the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established law.

Pritchett v. Lanier

766 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 31, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The qualified immunity test necessitates three discrete determinations: the identification of the specific right allegedly violated, the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a reasonable

Lloyd v. Birkman

127 F. Supp. 3d 725 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 2, 2015

Eeds, 392 F.3d 138, 147 (5th Cir.2004) (denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established that “Reporting serious police misconduct or corruption” was protected First Amendment activity); Izen v. … qualified immunity.

Marshall v. Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County

912 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jan 22, 1996

in a qualified immunity case according to clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … 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.

O'MALLEY v. City of Flint

652 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir.2002). … established”).

Wanamaker v. Westport Board of Education

899 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects .government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Alberts v. Willis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … For these reasons, qualified immunity is denied on this claim. IV.

Mahoney v. City of Albany

2022 NY Slip Op 07288 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2022

In the federal context, public officials may invoke qualified immunity under 42 USC § 1983 "unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established … Given this framework, we begin with Tierney's claim of qualified immunity.

Lockett v. New Orleans City

607 F.3d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 5, 2010

If the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity is not applicable. … Nonetheless, the district court granted the defendants qualified immunity because it found that Lockett did not satisfy the second prong, which requires that the constitutional right was clearly established.

William Thomas Meloy v. Kathy Bachmeier Dr. Bernard J. O'Neill

302 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

Thus, we proceed to the second qualified immunity question: whether the right was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Because the law was not clearly established that Ba-chmeier was deliberately indifferent to Meloy’s serious medical needs, Bachmeier is entitled to qualified immunity.

MacKey v. Cleveland State University

837 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 1993

Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must produce additional facts or allegations demonstrating that his constitutional rights were violated and “that these rights were so clearly established … Qualified immunity is available to the Trustees, Flower, Muczyk, and Konstantinos in their individual capacities since their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Moore, William v. Hartman, Michael

388 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil damages ‘‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Moore has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, precluding summary judgment under the first element of the qualified immunity test. Was the Law Clearly Established?

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 23, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens , the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.