Case law

Joseph Jones v. City of Jackson, Malcolm McMillin and Les Tannehill

203 F.3d 875 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 20, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity asserted in a motion for summary judgment is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right … of the clearly established legal rules.

Manuel v. Gill

270 Mich. App. 355 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

The trial court further determined that because none of the alleged conduct by the individuals amounted to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, the federal court stated, “Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.” 46 Whether a confidential informant may bring an action under §

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

Jonathan Turmon v. Charles Jordan, Individually, and Red Roof Inns, Incorporated

405 F.3d 202 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary duties “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Jordan violated Turmoris Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and because that right was clearly established on March 10, 2001, Jordan is not entitled to qualified immunity on the illegal seizure

Brown v. Grabowski

922 F.2d 1097 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 29, 1991

Anderson's strict elaboration of Harlow, establishing that an official is entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, unless the right that the official is alleged to have violated is both clearly established … established constitutional duty and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Nurre v. Whitehead

520 F. Supp. 2d 1222 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2007

Whitehead to qualified immunity as an individual defendant, for the record, the Court also grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity for the separate reason that it was not clearly established that … Similarly, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Establishment Clause claim because the Court has been unable to find authority clearly establishing that defendant was acting with

Johnson v. Myers

129 F.4th 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

It was clearly established law that a fatal shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. … Clearly Established Right Appellants insist that, even if Officers Myers and Beecroft violated Smith’s constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force, that right was not clearly established in the circumstances

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund

639 So. 2d 246 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

The retained amount increases to $2,000,000.00 in the event the limitation of liability established by the Medical Malpractice Act is modified or abrogated. … XII, § 10. [9] Louisiana courts have held the following immunities to be personal to the insured and therefore unavailable to the insurer: interspousal immunity, parental immunity, governmental immunity, charitable immunity

King's Grant Inn v. Gilford, et al.

2005 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 16, 2005

qualified immunity from liability for enforcing it. … Because the contours of the legal right defendants violated were not clearly established at the time they acted, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability, and they are entitled

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.

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

of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages under ' 1983 if the official = s A conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … = s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. [18] A right is A clearly established @ when its contours are A sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is

Joseph D. Leeks v. Lowell K. Cunningham, Mr. Carson P. Bass Joseph A. Kemper M. Press

997 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1993

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the-denial of qualified immunity, finding that as of 1980 it was “unequivocal” that the law as to the forced medication of a pretrial detainee was clearly established. Id. at 688 . … Thus, in assessing appellant’s qualified immunity claim, our concern is whether statutory or case law existed in July 1989 to clearly establish that a county jail pretrial detainee had a right under the Due Process Clause

Abdul Khan v. Newell Normand, Sheriff, et a

683 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Courts “have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id.

Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa

754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity...................................................1028 1. Clearly established right...........................................1029 2. … qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time and that the officer’s conduct violated that right), the proper question is whether the defendants have

Norton v. Rodrigues

955 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

by the Eighth Amendment and whether that right was clearly established at the relevant time). … Accordingly, to determine whether Rodrigues may have violated a clearly-established right and therefore may not be entitled to qualified immunity, we focus on the portions of the record that could reasonably be read to

St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. Loveland Ex Rel. Loveland

395 P.3d 751 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 22, 2017

We then assess whether the Lovelands have alleged facts sufficient to establish that the zip line was a dangerous condition, thereby depriving the District of immunity from suit here. … Even so, this is an argument about the design of the playground, which section 24-10-103(1.3) clearly prohibits.

City of Corinth v. Gladys

916 S.W.2d 618 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Fairfield filed an original answer asserting his affirmative defense of qualified or official immunity. … The City argues that the establishment of Fairfield’s qualified immunity protects the City from liability that may exist under section 101.021(2) of the Texas Tort Claims Act, which provides governmental liability for “personal