Case law

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 .

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Case v. Eslinger

555 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To invoke qualified immunity, the official first must establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Bates, 518 F.3d at 1242.

Gardner v. Evans

811 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider two questions: First, did the defendant violate a constitutional right? And second, were the contours of that right clearly established? … notice requirement was clearly established.

Al-Mustafa Irshad v. Spann

543 F. Supp. 922 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 19, 1982

The defendants also raise the qualified immunity of Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 , 98 S.Ct. 855 , 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), as a ground for dismissal. … Fitzgerald,U.S. -,-, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2735-2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (eliminates subjective component of good-faith immunity). This federal immunity defense clearly does not violate due process.

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]

Galette, C. v. NJ Transit

293 A.3d 649 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. … Specifically, the Court has recognized that the historical circumstances of the passage of the Eleventh Amendment clearly evince an intent “to preserve the States' traditional immunity from private suits.”

Haley Olson v. County of Grant

127 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 10, 2025

immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. … Though Carpenter violated Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights, the law was not clearly established at the time, thus entitling Carpenter to qualified immunity. A.

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

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.

Mildred I. Goyco De Maldonado v. Jose A. Rivera, Etc.

849 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 9, 1988

Where qualified immunity is the issue, the relevant query is whether, at the time of the challenged employment action, “it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light of the responsibilities … , qualified immunity shields that conduct.

Griffin v. City of Clanton, Ala.

932 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects an officer where a “reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established law would inevitably lead every reasonable officer to conclude that the force used was excessive.

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity 24 Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established law.

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.