Case law

Benjamin Reynolds v. American National Red Cross

701 F.3d 143 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 7, 2012

The Toyota Court held, in order to qualify as disabled under the ADA, "an individual must have an impairment that 12 REYNOLDS v. … AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS cal] inquiries of an employee," id. § 12112(d)(4)(A), the record clearly shows Reynolds disclosed his medical condi- tion voluntarily to Lockhart, who by all accounts was Reyn- olds’s friend.

Milfort v. Prevete

3 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 14, 2014

Qualified immunity applies when a government actor’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right, or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiffs … However, because sufficient material facts have been established, the Court will recount the factors compelling its conclusion that Prevete was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Price v. County of San Diego

990 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 8, 1998

immunity. 23 Qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits based on their conduct in situations in which they exercise discretion, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. … If the right was not clearly established, then the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. See Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 629 (9th Cir.1991).

Marvin Reeves v. Lt. Jacob King

774 F.3d 430 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 16, 2014

King is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) ‘the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [Reeves], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,’ and (2) the ‘right was clearly … In Irving, 519 F.3d at 451, we affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity because it was clearly established at that time that labeling an inmate a snitch would unreasonably subject the inmate to a substantial

Farmer v. Perrill

288 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2002

When a § 1983 defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity on summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred and must come forward with … sufficient facts to show the official violated that clearly established law.

RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valley

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2006

Here, the court had heard the bulk of the evidence during the qualified immunity defense phase. … When a court determines “no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” (Ibid.)

Young v. Martin

172 F. Supp. 2d 919 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 25, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, such an official will not be found personally liable for money damages unless the official’s actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established.

Rodeman v. Foster

767 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 16, 2011

Once defendants asserted qualified immunity, the burden shifted to plaintiff to show the violation of a clearly established right. See Powell v. … no material facts remain in dispute that would defeat his or her claim of qualified immunity.”).

Cox v. Thompson

635 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 12, 1986

First plaintiff contends that the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply in this case because the rights asserted by the plaintiff are clearly established constitutional rights. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE “Government officials performing discretionary functions, as here, are shielded from liability for damages in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory

Jensen v. Conrad

570 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 18, 1983

established at the time an action occurred’ and that, if the court determined that it was not ‘clearly established’ at that time, a grant of summary judgment, based on the officials qualified immunity right, was in order … 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. ...

Donald Tangwall v. Thomas Stuckey

135 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 2, 1998

Again, we shall reserve addressing whether Detective Stuck-ey acted in violation of clearly established law and, alternatively, the merits of his qualified immunity defense until later in this opinion. … We hold that Stuckey did not violate a clearly established law and that he is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of the lawsuit against him. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 1 .

Rivera v. Washington

298 Ga. 770 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it was possible that facts could be shown in discovery that would establish that neither quasi-judicial immunity nor sovereign immunity applied. … But, Cameron did not make such a pronouncement about qualified immunity under the laws of this state.

Delia v. City of Rialto

621 F.3d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 9, 2010

Qualified Immunity—The City’s Employees [1] “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects govern- ment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Nevertheless, we conclude that these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Delia has not established that this constitu- tional right was clearly established at the time of Chief Wells’s order to Delia.

Roska v. Sneddon

311 F. Supp. 2d 1307 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 26, 2004

At the same time, however, “where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only ‘rarely’ be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense.” … was “clearly established.”

John Montin v. Y. Moore

846 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 19, 2017

A state official is immune from liability unless he or she “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.” Carpenter v. … When determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, we examine (1) whether the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Dorothea Gravely v. John Madden

142 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 21, 1998

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. … Put another way, the question of whether Madden is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective reasonableness of his actions, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time they

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.

Staley v. Lingerfelt

134 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 1999

App. at 725-26 , 460 S.E.2d at 211 : ‘The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Walentas v. Lipper

662 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 17, 1987

Discussion Qualified Immunity of Government Officials Harlow v. … The answer is that it certainly was not clearly established.

Florance v. Buchmeyer

500 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 31, 2007

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the threshold question is whether, on the facts as alleged by plaintiff, a clearly established constitutional right would have been violated. … In addressing a claim of qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, which is a purely legal question. Siegert v.