Case law

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

971 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Caudill v. Hollan

431 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hollan argues that she deserves qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissals of deputy county clerks was not clearly established, particularly in light of Cope … immunity due to the absence of clearly established law.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Amir M. Meshal v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety

117 F.4th 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that Meshal failed to allege a violation of clearly established law. … The district court’s qualified-immunity ruling should be re- versed only if the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.”

Simmie Whitt v. Roger Smith

832 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1987

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred .... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. ... ...

Green v. Post

574 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2009

Because we held that the law was not clearly established at the time of the accident, however, we held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

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.

Manion v. Michigan Board of Medicine

765 F.2d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 1985

If the law which the defendant it alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

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

Ernest Jackson, Sr. v. Raymond Hoylman and Robert Bidwell

933 F.2d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1991

The court then considered the qualified immunity motion and concluded that because qualified immunity turns on the same objective reasonableness standard that the claim of excessive turns on, defendants must be denied summary … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.

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.

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

Phillip Fry, Susan Fry v. Olin Melaragno, David W. Otto, Mark Barnes, Mark Pendery

939 F.2d 832 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 29, 1991

Therefore, [u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.... … Nor do they suggest that Melaragno acted in a way which he should have known was clearly unlawful. Melar-agno is entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

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.

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.

Biggs v. Best, Best & Krieger

189 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 30, 1999

Finally, we consider de novo a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to the extent that the parties raise the “purely legal” issue of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. … . *994 In order to determine whether the council defendants should receive qualified immunity, we must consider (1) whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established and (2) whether, given this clearly