Case law

Kelley v. CITY OF WILLIAMSON, WEST VIRGINIA

221 W. Va. 506 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2007

In Baker , the court recognized that “[although qualified immunity is ‘in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate,’ when the law is clearly established, immunity from trial is appropriate only when the plaintiff … has not demonstrated any genuine issues of material fact which must be resolved to determine whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under clearly established law.”

Joshua Venckus v. City of Iowa City

930 N.W.2d 792 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 28, 2019

One well-established immunity is the judicial process immunity. … Against this regulatory backdrop, the abandonment of the absolute immunity in favor of qualified immunity is unnecessary to achieve Venckus's stated policy objectives.

Bowen Ex Rel. Estate of Bowen v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

826 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Finally, the three defendant officials maintained that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct was not in violation of clearly established … and Officer Davis are “not entitled to qualified immunity by showing that the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of [the]

McColley v. County of Rensselaer

740 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

Such a denial of qualified immunity is reviewed by this Court to determine whether “the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … . it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Moore v. Newton

220 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable … Qualified immunity extends to circumstances where an official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and applies “regardless of whether

Koubriti v. Convertino

593 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2010

The court suggested that Convertino would only have qualified immunity for these claims. It did not analyze the claims under the qualified immunity standard, however. … On the other hand, government officials generally enjoy a presumption of qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, such that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

State v. Jones

298 Kan. 324 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Nov 8, 2013

It gave content to the prerequisites for claiming K.S.A. 21-3219 immunity; it did not dictate procedure or the lack of it. Jones also attempts to draw an analogy to qualified immunity for government officials. … But, to tire extent such a comparison is sound, an issue we do not decide today, qualified immunity is waived if it is not raised early in a case as an affirmative defense. See Bentley v.

Caviness v. Johnson

614 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2008

Caviness also challenges Johnson’s claim to qualified immunity, contending the law was clearly established that excessive damage to his property can give rise to a constitutional claim and that the seizure of the knives and … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish that a defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Allen L. Nicklasson v. Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center

491 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if, in the federal court’s independent judgment “the relevant state-court decision [not only] applied clearly established federal … Nicklasson therefore argues that the issues presented represent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law set forth in Morgan v.

Bletz Ex Rel. Estate of Bletz v. Gribble

640 F. Supp. 2d 907 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 10, 2009

If the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find that Officers Denny and Gribble violated Fred or Kitti Bletz’s clearly established constitutional rights, qualified immunity provides no added protection from suit or … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right alleged to be violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Grawey v.

Smith v. Stafford

189 P.3d 1065 · Alaska Supreme Court · Aug 8, 2008

that qualified immunity is appropriate. … 42 If the allegations show a constitutional violation, courts then must determine whether the right allegedly violated was "clearly established," which occurs where the "contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that

Jerry Hollingsworth and Kenneth Anderson v. Kim Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor, and Steve Hackler, Individually and as Next Friend for C. H., a Minor

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · Dec 31, 2009

(footnote: 16) The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under § 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established … (footnote: 17) After a government official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the summary judgment burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory

Estate of D.E.; D.E., individually by and through his mother, Christine Erickson; Christine Erickson, individually; and I.E., a minor, by and through her mother, Christine Erickson v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources; Jeffery M. Pack; and Jennifer L. Raper, individually and in her capacity as an employee/agent of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Nov 4, 2024

to a good faith report of child abuse or neglect; and both are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no allegation that they violated a clearly established 3 law … “[I]t is well- established that matters involving qualified immunity, such as the case presently before us, require a type of ‘heightened pleading’ standard.” W. Virginia Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v.

Stainback v. Dixon

569 F.3d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … Only if a constitutional violation was established could a court address the second inquiry: whether the plaintiffs right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Herman Harris v. Zachary Pittman

927 F.3d 266 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 18, 2019

that right was not clearly established with the requisite specificity at the time of the incident. … immunity because that right was not "clearly established" with sufficient specificity at the time of the incident.

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

Shepard v. Irving

204 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in Section 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a clearly established right of which Defendants should have known.

Trackwell v. County of Lancaster

Nebraska Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2020

The trial court found that Kelly and Lacey had qualified immunity against Trackwell’s § 1983 claim because he did not demonstrate the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. … To survive a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must assert a violation of a constitutional right, show that this right is clearly established, and raise an issue of material fact as

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative