Case law

Ecclesiastical Order of the ISM of AM, Inc. v. Chasin

653 F. Supp. 1200 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1986

Defend.ants claim that they have satisfied the requisite test for qualified immunity; to wit, the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Agents of the IRS do not have absolute immunity — only qualified immunity — from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Tubar v. Clift

286 F. App'x 348 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in their official capacities from civil liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable” official … In Saucier, the Supreme Court imposed a specific, sequential analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is warranted.

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

Brown v. City of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

We hold that because it was unclear whether FERPA’s “emergency exception” allowed release of the list, no clearly established right of plaintiffs was infringed and appellants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no “clearly established right” is infringed.

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.

Smith v. Robinson

456 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1978

Under the circumstances, the “clearly established right” aspect of Wood v. Strickland is unavailing to plaintiff here, and defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity must therefore prevail. … With respect to the equal protection claim, however, plaintiff does not even suggest that prior decisions delineate a “clearly established” right that would defeat defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Jamison v. Fischer

617 F. App'x 25 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 30, 2015

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at … The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is whether the federal “constitutional right [an official] was alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Davis v.

Currier v. Doran

242 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

Because Plaintiffs have alleged a clearly established constitutional claim against Defendants Doran and Gonzales, these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; this court therefore affirms the district court … Clearly Established Law Once defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that the law on which the plaintiff relies was clearly established at the time of the defendants

Shipp v. McMahon

199 F.3d 256 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 7, 2000

’s assertion of qualified immunity. … Thus, courts engage in a two-step analysis to address claims of qualified immunity. *262 First, to show that a right is clearly established, the plaintiff does not have to refer to precedent that is directly on point, or

Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas

956 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

The Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal claim if their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. See White v. Pauly, 137 S. … Broadly defined rights by themselves do not create clearly established law outside an "obvious case," see Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

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

Henry E. Parrish Yvonne L. Parrish v. Donald Mallinger Richard Larkin Crispus Nix

133 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 7, 1998

Qualified immunity shields prison officials from damage liability unless they “violate clearly es tablished statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Whether a broad constitutional right such as due process is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes is a particularized inquiry: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

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

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.

Elliott v. Cheshire County, NH

750 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 1990

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the defendants qualified immunity.

Baptist v. O'LEARY

742 F. Supp. 975 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 11, 1990

Qualified Immunity No such trial will be necessary here, though, because defendants must prevail on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As Harlow v. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Montana v. Patterson

894 S.W.2d 812 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Dec 28, 1994

Appellees claimed qualified or “good faith” immunity to actions brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 , and cited Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Once the Appellees have asserted the qualified immunity and established that the alleged wrongful acts were taken within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to show that qualified

Troy Lee Douthit v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas, and W. H. McCallum

619 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 1980

The Qualified Immunity Defense. … Thus the immunity defense is not available to officials if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Riebsame v. Prince

267 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 2003

Deputy Prince is entitled to qualified immunity from Count III of Rieb-same’s complaint. Riebsame has not shown that Deputy Prince violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory law. … Riebsame has not proved that Sheriff Williams violated any clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to Sheriff Williams’ qualified immunity. D.

Ricciuti v. Gyzenis

832 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 28, 2011

Finally, the individual defendants claim qualified immunity, arguing that their conduct was not prohibited by clearly established law at the time of Ms. Ricciuti’s termination. … There is no small irony in the fact that the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity case law is itself not "clearly established.”