Case law

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

Byrd v. Cornelius

52 F.4th 265 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 31, 2022

III Cornelius and Sweetin argue that we should reverse the district court and grant them qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Next, we address, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byrd, whether the officers violated clearly established law when they allegedly used excessive force to arrest a

Harvey v. Republic Services of Ohio II, 2007 Ca 00278 (3-23-2009)

2009 Ohio 1343 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. {¶ 21} "VI. … immunity if their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

C.A. v. Lowndes County Department of Family & Children Services

93 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 13, 2000

The first inquiry in examining a defense of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … As such, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free from state-created dangers was not, and is not, clearly established in this jurisdiction.

Ram v. Rubin

118 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 2, 1997

under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … When an official asserts qualified immunity, we apply a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

J.L. v. Barnes

33 A.3d 902 · Superior Court of Delaware · Jun 17, 2011

and qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity When State actors or employees are sued in their individual capacities, they are exempt from liability (known as “qualified immunity”) pursuant to the STCA when: (1) the alleged act or failure to act arises

Trammell v. Thomason

559 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 2008

“In this Circuit, the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions from the U.S. … Thus, the Court turns to the next sequential step in a qualified immunity analysis, which is to determine whether the right was “clearly established.” Was the right clearly established?

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black

706 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal -9- constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established … We conclude that Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim. III.

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers' unlawful actions were objectively reasonable "as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity standard. 32 The State Troopers are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on qualified

Stipetich v. Grosshans

235 Wis. 2d 69 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 2000

"Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate a person's clearly established constitutional rights." Id. at 469 . … Although qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating "by closely analogous case law, that the defendant has violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id.

Hill v. Miller

878 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 23, 1995

As the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed, “[p]olice officers who use force are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Accordingly, Miller maintains that his conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Cynthia Clayborn v. Dennis Struebling

734 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Examining qualified immunity, this court applies a two-part test.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Aviles v. Department of the Army

666 F. Supp. 2d 224 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2009

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … violated that clearly established constitutional right.”

Ziemba v. Armstrong

433 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity inquiry requires the court to ask, first, whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. … Qualified Immunity Argument For the reasons stated in Part II, supra, the court finds that Mangiafico is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

491 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v.

Mark Cook v. Roberta Sheldon and Nelson Saldana, New York State Troopers

41 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

We conclude that the Troopers have not yet earned qualified immunity as a matter of law because, under the facts alleged by Cook, the Troopers may be held to have violated Cook’s clearly established rights. … To evaluate the Troopers’ right to qualified immunity, we must again examine whether the malicious prosecution claim alleges a violation of Cook’s clearly established federal rights.

STATE EX REL. W. VA. DHHR v. Kaufman

506 S.E.2d 93 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1998

from suit based upon (1) statutory immunity; (2) quasi-judicial immunity; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty … ; (3) common-law doctrine of qualified immunity and no violation of a clearly established right; and (4) absence of duty based upon the public duty doctrine.

Rancho del Oso Pardo, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 21, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established.

Mee v. Ortega

967 F.2d 423 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 18, 1992

Accordingly, “summary judgment in favor of a defendant seeking qualified immunity is appropriate only if the constitutional standards governing the challenged conduct were not clearly established.” Rex v. … Ortega on the basis of qualified immunity. “[T]he plaintiff cannot simply identify a clearly established right in the abstract and allege that the defendant has violated it.” Hilliard v.