Case law

Towery v. State

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. Nothing in Civil Code section 52.1 indicates an intent to abrogate this specific immunity provision. … The court explained that the current scope of this qualified immunity "shields a public officer from an action for damages under 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a 'clearly established' constitutional

Birkeland v. Jorgenson

District Court, D. Minnesota · May 1, 2019

However, the Court must also consider the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, whether the right was “clearly established.” … Therefore, the alleged right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 2.

Cox v. Wilson

959 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 22, 2020

Yet the Pauly officers were protected by qualified immunity because of the absence of clearly established law prohibiting their conduct. … Moreover, were we to consider this argument, it would fail because the clearly-established-law component of qualified immunity is not a jury issue. See Griess v.

Rasic v. City of Northlake

563 F. Supp. 2d 885 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 27, 2008

The two-part standard for qualified immunity asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; it does not ask whether it was clearly established that the … The purpose of qualified immunity is to give public officials freedom to act — but, only so long as their actions do not violate a clearly established right.

Ajala v. Tom

658 F. App'x 805 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2016

shown that their conduct violated clearly established law in 2007. … On appeal Ajala argues that the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to the Defendants because, he says, it was clearly established by 2007 that using restraints to inflict prolonged, unnecessary pain on a

Martha L. Pike Cynthia J. Kincer v. Kermit L. Osborne, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Wythe County, Virginia

301 F.3d 182 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Osborne appealed, claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity either, because the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional violation or because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time of the … Because the law in this area was not clearly established at the time the plaintiffs were not reappointed, Sheriff Osborne is entitled to 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.

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).

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.

Wayne Gerling v. Matthew Waite

2 F.4th 737 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 23, 2021

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … When a defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated his constitutional right, and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

Diane Sigismondi Judy v. Eastern West Virginia Community and Technical College

West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2022

As discussed herein, Petitioner pled facts demonstrating a violation of this clearly established law, so, per Marple, Eastern is entitled to no qualified immunity here. … clearly established statutory law.

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.

Volpi v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

9 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2014

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

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

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.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

148 F. Supp. 3d 1232 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 7, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

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.

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.