Case law

Williams v. Schismenos

258 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Analysis The defendant officers maintain that qualified immunity protects them from liability for all federal claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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

Hicks v. Phipps

765 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 5, 1990

Public officials have qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. … Therefore, Vanover is entitled to qualified immunity from Mrs. Hicks’ claim for civil damages.

Hansen v. Meese

675 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 1987

Further, the court held that qualified immunity was inapplicable because the right at issue was clearly established. Id. at 3037-38 . … The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the “clearly established law” test should not be applied at a level of generality that would undermine the balance struck by the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. at 3038-39 .

Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling

714 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that ‘must be undertaken in light *1091 of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’

Scott Lee Rudlaff v. Brandon Gillispie

791 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2015

Remember that qualified immunity (as we’ve been reminded again and again) is an “exacting standard” that gives officers lots of leeway, requiring their conduct to violate clearly established law to defeat the defense. … Because the officers acted constitutionally — and because even if they didn’t, by all accounts they didn’t clearly act unconstitutionally — they are protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.

Facey v. Dickhaut

892 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

835 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation? … Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, albeit for a different reason: It was not clearly established in Maryland in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment prohibits

Macareno v. Thomas

378 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 8, 2019

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Because Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right was clearly established, the Court DENIES Defendant Officers' motion for qualified immunity. iii.

Evett v. DETNTFF

330 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 3, 2003

The law could not be more clear that an individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. … First, the plaintiff must allege the violation of a clearly established right.

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

Suddith v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISS.

977 So. 2d 1158 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jul 31, 2007

Qualified or "good faith" immunity "shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … As discussed in the next section of this opinion, Suddith fails to establish that there has been a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

City of Laredo v. Leal

161 S.W.3d 558 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Feb 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity Dovalina next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment on Leal’s substantive and procedural due process claims on the ground of qualified immunity. 3 We again agree. … “The well-established test for qualified immunity requires us to engage in a two-step inquiry.” Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 466 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 872 , 119 S.Ct. 170 , 142 L.Ed.2d 139 (1998).

Cox v. Village of Pleasantville

271 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2017

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation “if either (a) the defendant’s, action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the … As there is no clearly-established law holding that a stop under these or similar circumstances is impermissible, the Court agrees that, Hess is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his Fourth Amendment seizure

Weigand v. Spadt

317 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2004

DISCUSSION “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Yowell v. … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Beverly Spencer v. Sheriff Jonathan Benison

5 F.4th 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

It found that Benison was not entitled to qualified immunity on Spencer’s individual capacity claims because he “failed to establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when he ordered Spencer … 18-14397 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

682 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2012

Patchman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), or in the alterna- tive, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi

362 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 29, 2004

Qualified Immunity "Denials of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds are reviewed to the extent that the qualified immunity defense turns upon a purely legal question and any disputed … We turn now to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. "The question of whether a right is clearly established is an issue of law for the court to decide."

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established