Case law

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Cooke

149 S.W.3d 700 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 1, 2004

The Department urges that immunity has not been waived because Johnson has failed to establish by his pleadings and the evidence that he was denied the job because of his race. … Although the Department believes that Johnson was clearly not qualified for the position and that, therefore, he had no prima facie case and necessarily pleaded fraudulently that he was qualified, for the reasons already

Andrea Martinez v. Ronnet Sasse

37 F.4th 506 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

Sasse moved for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Sasse is entitled to qualified immunity.

Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville

136 Ohio St. 3d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2013

The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter … The court of appeals simply held that North Ridgeville did not establish entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 23.

Perez v. Ellington

421 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 22, 2005

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. … It is first necessary to determine exactly which clearly established constitutional right Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated.

Wayne Scott and Gary Johnson v. Charles Godwin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Qualified immunity under § 1983 shields officials from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Carol J. Applewhite v. United States Air Force, Randall L. Faulkner, Leonard Ross, and William E. McBride

995 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 10, 1993

The said officers moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, contending that their acts did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Mrs. … It is now well established that a law-enforcement official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Gehl Group v. Koby

838 F. Supp. 1409 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment Bights Next, I must examine the second component of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established law precluding qualified immunity.

Zitta v. Graham

996 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jan 24, 2014

As long as the conduct was “objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken,” qualified immunity applies. Id. … As explained above, Officer Graham is entitled to qualified immunity because the point at which an officer’s conduct reaches state action in these circumstances has not been clearly established.

Smith v. Bunkley

171 A.3d 1118 · Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 3, 2016

to establish jurisdiction necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.18 Therefore, the “[p]laintiff bears the burden of establishing that sovereign immunity has been abrogated.”19 For example, in Pauley et al v. … The State Tort Claims Act provides a qualified immunity to state employees, only in their individual capacities, exempting them from liability.22 The defense of qualified immunity may be raised when: “(1) the alleged act

Smith v. Nixon

582 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1984

Sullivan and Cartha DeLoach: Qualified Immunity The remaining defendants move for summary judgment under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow, supra. … of qualified immunity.

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

65 F. Supp. 3d 1206 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 5, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Stamm v. Cnty. of Cheyenne

326 F. Supp. 3d 832 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 11, 2018

12 because there was no clearly established law to alert the officers that their allegedly unlawful searches would deprive Plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment rights. 13 "To avoid qualified immunity, the asserted rights … For purposes of analyzing the individual Defendants' qualified immunity defense, the court finds this right to confidentiality was clearly established at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Adam Locke v. Mya Haessig

788 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti- tutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law in 2007 and 2008 If we accept the facts asserted by Locke, Haessig’s actions violated clearly established law at time of the violation.

Craft v. Wipf

836 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Whether an official may prevail in his [or her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id.

Ringer v. Fallis

848 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 31, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … A court must begin its qualified immunity analysis with the determination of whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v.

Morales v. City of North Las Vegas

272 F. Supp. 3d 1216 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 26, 2017

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement 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 … This argument, without more, would likely fail the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry because of the "longstanding principle that clearly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality ...

Kinzer v. Jackson

316 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 9, 2003

The court therefore refused to accord Harris qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government employee acting in his official capacity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless the employee’s conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

Trevor Davis v. Christopher Allen

112 F.4th 487 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2024

The 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the un- lawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time … Whether Deputy Allen Violated Clearly Established Law Depends on Disputed Facts The parties’ disputed facts are also inextricably bound up with the question of whether Deputy Allen violated clearly established