Case law

John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas

722 F.3d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2013

’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity: “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”10

Ratliff v. DeKalb County, GA

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

court assumed for the purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from

Gooden v. Howard County

954 F.2d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 1992

Gooden further argues that the defendants did not act reasonably in light of clearly established law. … However, “if the test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of generality,”....

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).

Graham v. Gray

827 F.2d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 1987

established law.” … violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Tortes v. King County

84 P.3d 252 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. [19] The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with

Rich v. United States

158 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2001

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To obtain qualified immunity, Defendants must establish that in light of this clearly established law, the agents reasonably could have believed that the search of Plaintiffs’ home was lawful.

Anthony v. Vaccaro

43 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1999

Gilley, 957 F.2d 1347, 1348 (6th Cir.1992). of Government officials are generally entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions as long as the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Acklin v. City of Inkster

93 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2015

Specifically, the Defendants contend they should be entitled to qualified immunity because they contend they did not violate any statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established and of which a reasonable person … As discussed, Acklin’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force while handcuffed is “clearly established;” thus, Plaintiff meets that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 .

Patton v. Wood County Humane Society

154 Ohio App. 3d 670 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2003

immunity from suit in a Section 1983 action so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … of clearly established law and the information that he possessed.

Baird v. Renbarger

576 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

Renbarger’s qualified immunity defense. … We therefore proceed to the second step of the qualified-immunity inquiry and ask whether the right at issue was clearly established: [T]he right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Palmer v. Sanderson

9 F.3d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 23, 1993

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the “right” they allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation, or (2) if a reasonable … Sanderson and Morrisette argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s protection against excessive force was not clearly established

Trevis Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega

748 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2014

And, for the first time in this case, the defendants asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the alternative ground that the law did not “clearly establish” that their actions were unconstitutional. … CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW The only remaining issue relevant to the defendants’ qualified immunity defense is whether, by September 9, 2009, preexisting law clearly established that the defendants’ conduct violated

State of W.Va. ex rel. Vanderra Resources, LLC v. Hon. David W. Hummel, Jr., Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and Kanawha Stone Company, Inc.

829 S.E.2d 35 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2019

Payne,19 which involved a circuit court’s denial of summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense, we held: A circuit court’s order denying summary judgment on qualified immunity … the narrow issue of whether a trial court’s denial of qualified immunity is subject to immediate appeal.

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.

Kaminsky v. Rosenblum

929 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1991

DISCUSSION I Doctrine of Qualified Immunity 10 The doctrine of qualified immunity evolved as a balance between the need, on one hand, to hold responsible public officials exercising their power in a wholly unjustified manner … Contrary to appellants' contention, the district court did not stop after addressing only the threshold issue of whether the law was clearly established.

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.”

Lue v. Moore

43 F.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 29, 1994

Qualified immunity shields the defendants from liability unless they violated Lue’s clearly established rights under the Act and reasonably should have known they were doing so. See id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … Lue thus has not raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether the defendants violated his clearly established rights, and the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

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.