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.

Doyle v. Coombe

976 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 26, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants have not raised qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. … “‘To defeat an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the individual’s right must have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ” LaBounty, 1996 WL 711497 at *1 (citations omitted).

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

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.

Andre Guite v. James Wright Steven James Lashomb

147 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 1998

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. … First, they appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Trigalet v. Young

54 F.3d 645 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 2, 1995

The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the Trigalets’ substantive due process claim upon concluding that, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established that the officers … The court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law under which defendants actions could form the basis of a constitutional claim became clearly established on March 1, 1990, when

Terry A. Leonard, P.A. v. Glenn

293 S.W.3d 669 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 20, 2009

[T]he offering party [must] establish that the expert has ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ [to qualify the expert in that particular case]).” Baptist Hosp. of Se. Tex. v. … Tangible Property Even if appellants established governmental use, they must also establish the use or misuse of “tangible” property.

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.

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.

Michael Kingsley v. Stan Hendrickson

801 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2015

The defendants take a different position; in their view, the decision of the Supreme Court en- titles them to qualified immunity. … In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified 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

Doe v. Southeast Delco School District

140 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government employees sued in their personal capacities from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ... which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity will protect Assistant Superintendent Ryan if Plaintiffs *404 have failed to allege he violated their constitutional rights or if Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a right that was not clearly established

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

Larry and Karen Spielman v. Sara C. Hildebrand and Don Madsen

873 F.2d 1377 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 1989

. § 1983 and, if so, whether such rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, thereby divesting the defendants of qualified immunity from suit for their actions in this matter. We affirm. I. … As with the constitutional claim, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the Spielmans can show the deprivation of a clearly established right.

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.

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.