Case law

Krinitt v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game

162 Idaho 425 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2017

Krinitt opposed the motion, arguing: (1) IDFG was not Perry’s statutory employer and therefore did not qualify for statutory immunity; and (2) even if IDFG was Perry’s statutory employer, IDFG had waived its statutory immunity … Here, IDFG qualifies as a category one statutory employer of Perry. The “Service Level Agreement” between IDFG and the DOI clearly shows IDFG contracted with the DOI to secure aviation services.

Burnett v. Bottoms

368 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 2, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from Plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … If the right is not clearly established, the individual public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. Thompson v.

SER City of Bridgeport v. Hon. John Lewis Marks, Jr., Judge

233 W. Va. 449 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 27, 2014

“The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. … City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), absolute statutory immunity, like qualified immunity, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that “is effectively lost if the case is

Cross v. Mokwa

547 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … the plaintiffs clearly established federal rights.”

Lawrence J. Korb v. John F. Lehman, Jr. Everett Pyatt Melvyn R. Paisley, and Carl M. Smith

919 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 1991

It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v. … The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Perry v. Mendoza

83 F.4th 313 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established at the time. Laviage v. Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 405–06 (5th Cir. 2022). … Even assuming those decisions stand for that categorical proposition (which we need not decide), they are too far afield from the present case to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Green v. Brantley

719 F. Supp. 1570 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 1989

to qualified immunity. … According to Anderson , qualified immunity requires not only a finding that general legal principles were clearly established, but also a finding that the law was clearly established with such particularity that a reasonable

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.

Miguel Gutierrez v. Michael Kermon

722 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Qualified immunity affords an even greater level of protection by shielding officers from “suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Yarris v. County of Delaware

465 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 2, 2006

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall

312 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. … If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v.

Rice v. Burks

796 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 28, 1992

The Seventh Circuit, in discussing that court’s jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal purportedly on qualified immunity grounds, explained qualified immunity as follows: The defense of qualified immunity articulated in … An official who does not violate law “clearly established” at the time, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , is entitled not only to prevail, but to prevail before trial. Qualified immunity, we know from Mitchell [v.

Kenneth R. Henderson v. Les Munn, in His Individual Capacity

439 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

“The question of what was known to a person who might be shielded by qualified immunity is reviewable, to determine if the known facts would inform a reasonable actor that his actions violate an established legal standard … Officer Munn’s Liability on Excessive Force Claim 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

Thomas Burnside v. Nueces County, Texas

773 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 2014

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … And, the law is clearly established that such a retaliatory action, if proved, violates the First Amendment.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Stokes v. Gann

498 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

“Qualified” or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident.

Wayne King v. Charles Beavers

148 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 9, 1998

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damage liability unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … We conclude Beavers is entitled to qualified immunity for two distinct reasons. A. No Clearly Established Federal Right.

Ronald Davidson v. Charles J. Scully, Superintendent, and Edward Bollinger, Correction Officer

114 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 1997

Under the law of qualified immunity, government officials may be sued only for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if: the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the