Case law

George Mitchell v. State of Washington

818 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity — Clearly Established Despite the fact that we hold that the violation of a constitutional right occurred, Dr. … Bell is entitled to qualified immunity if it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate Mitchell’s constitutional rights. 7 Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 . At the time of Dr.

Braxton v. Matthews

883 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 28, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Next the Court must examine whether Defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Wiley v. … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Cindy Laine Franklin v. Chris Curry

738 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2013

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, to evaluate their entitlement to qualified immunity, we ask whether Franklin has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the

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

Hare ex rel. Hare v. City of Corinth

22 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has asserted

Putnam v. Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … clearly established.

Mary Sallenger, as the Administrator of the Estate of Andrew B. Sallenger, Deceased v. Brian Oakes, James Zimmerman, and Jason Oliver

473 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2007

If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are still entitled to qualified immunity.

Cardall v. Thompson

845 F. Supp. 2d 1182 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 11, 2012

After the defendant contends that qualified immunity applies, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated his rights, as protected by clearly established law. V-1 Oil Co. v. … Clearly Established Even if the decision to tase Brian was unconstitutional, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is still appropriate if the unconstitutionality of the tasing was not “clearly established”

Diamond v. Owens

131 F. Supp. 3d 1346 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 14, 2015

Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established Lewis is not entitled to qualified immunity if clearly established law gave her fair warning her conduct violated Diamond’s Eighth Amendment right to be protected from … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established Lewis is not entitled to qualified immunity if clearly established law gave her fair warning her failure to train subordinates was unlawful.

TEICHBERG v. Smith

734 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 17, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Even if the seizure of the backpack was unreasonable, Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Engleman v. Adkerson

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 1, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff devotes no section to her failure-to-intervene claim but simply says Adkerson is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that a person cannot be arrested without a

Conkey v. Reno

885 F. Supp. 1389 · District Court, D. Nevada · May 4, 1995

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken in the performance of discretionary functions when their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Conkey of property without due process of law on the basis of qualified immunity. The complaint alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

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?

Cox v. Fischer

248 F. Supp. 3d 471 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The Court concludes that Officer Murphy is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. 1.

Wiggins v. Griffin

86 F.4th 987 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 20, 2023

Qualified Immunity We next turn to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Summary 19 judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is not appropriate because it was clearly established law at the time of the alleged

Maria S. v. Garza

912 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2019

The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, demonstrate that an officer violated a federal right and (2) whether the right was clearly established … The district court correctly awarded qualified immunity. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of qualified immunity. Agent Garza does not recall being told this.

Moore v. Indehar

514 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

However, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a police officer is entitled to dismissal of such an action if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … before a court can determine whether it was clearly established.”

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.

Borgman v. Kedley

646 F.3d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil liability for any action that does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Young v. … When determining whether a state official is entitled to qualified immunity, we decide whether the alleged facts demonstrate that his conduct violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established

Opinion No. 91-562 (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 10, 1991

A COUNTY MAY NEVERTHELESS ESTABLISH IMMUNITY FROM TORT LIABILITY, IF IT CAN ESTABLISH FACT THAT WOULD ENTITLE IT TO ONE OF SEVERAL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE ACT. … FURTHER, IMMUNITY FOR INCORPORATED CASA ORGANIZATIONS COULD ALSO BE MORE CLEARLY CONFERRED BY AMENDING THE RELEVANT PROVISION TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IMMUNITY FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR THE INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ITSELF