Case law

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

924 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2013

Fox’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hinton v. City Of Elwood

997 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d … When a finding of qualified immunity is predicated on the basis that the law is not clearly established, it is indeed correct that "there is nothing anomalous about allowing [a suit against a municipality] to proceed when

Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections

194 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1992

Highest executive officials may qualify for absolute immunity because they have broad-based jurisdiction or extensive authority similar to that of a judge or legislator. Chivas, supra, p 471 . … Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants Brown and Johnson summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) based upon governmental immunity. 1 The remaining individual defendants do not qualify as "highest executive

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Rivera v. Fischer

655 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity The moving defendants also argue, in the alternative, that plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory

Oscar F. Sanchez Liliana Sanchez v. Charles Swyden, Inspector, Warren K. Hayward, Officer

131 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

We disagree, go no further than step one of the qualified immunity analysis, and conclude that Sanchez has not shown that the defendants deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. In Baker v. … CONCLUSION Finding that Sanchez has not shown that he has been deprived of a clearly established constitutional right, we hold that all defendants named in Sanchez’s § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

59 F.4th 674 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 2023

When the stop occurred, it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions violated the passenger’s First Amendment rights. So qualified immunity bars that claim. I. … Walker, A Qualified Defense of Qualified Immunity, 93 NOTRE DAME L.

Richard v. Hall

874 So. 2d 131 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 23, 2004

Revised Statute 9:2795B(1) clearly supports an interpretation that an owner, lessee or occupant qualifies for the immunity where his use of the premises is not principally for a commercial, recreational enterprise for profit … that determines the availability of the immunity provisions to a qualified owner.

William Wentworth Foster v. Mary Basham

932 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Basham also contended she was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Although subjective motive (or intent) is not relevant to the qualified-immunity analysis, the knowledge possessed by the defendant at the time the challenged action occurred is, along with the clearly established law as

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

953 F.3d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from civil liability unless the officers (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. … As for Middaugh, the majority correctly states that, in order to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, Howse must show that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right.

William A. Newman, Ph.D. v. Nereu F. Kock, Jr., Jacky Yuk-Chow So, Dan R. Jones, and Ray M. Keck, III

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to federal law claims that shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability as long as their actions could reasonably be thought … that violated clearly established law.

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Smith v. Mattox

127 F.3d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 1997

immunity grounds to the extent the appeal concerns pure issues of law, such as whether the law was clearly established); Cottrell v. … An official sued as an individual is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."6 A reasonable official's

Porter v. City of Manchester

151 N.H. 30 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · May 14, 2004

Qualified Immunity Lafond next argues that the trial court erred by rejecting her qualified immunity defense. … Clearly Established Right We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity test, whether Porter’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time Lafond constructively terminated him.

R.N. b/n/f of P.N. and R.N. individually v. Rogan

2017 DNH 044 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 8, 2017

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … “To avoid a qualified-immunity defense, [the plaintiff] must show (1) that [the defendant] infracted his federal rights and (2) that these rights were so clearly established that a reasonable officer should have known

Wayne Powell, as of the Estate of Dana Kimberly Devilla v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent Thomas A. Coughlin, III C.O. Lynch C.O. Crowley

175 F.3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The Eighth Amendment Claim The district court dismissed Devil-la’s Eighth Amendment claim on the ground of qualified immunity, reasoning that “it was not clearly established as of this incident in 1991 that a corrections

Gary Jacobsen v. Michael Klinefelter

992 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 30, 2021

The court concluded that Klinefelter did not violate a clearly established right of Jacobsen’s under the Fourth Amendment and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, Jacobsen must show that the evidence would support a finding that Klinefelter violated Jacobsen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and that the right was clearly established

Tessler v. Paterson

768 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2011

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right.