Case law

Garza v. Escobar

386 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2019

to qualified immunity if Plaintiff had stated a claim. b. … Texas , 65 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding qualified immunity appropriate because it was not clearly established whether the political patronage exception applied to investigators in district attorney's offices or sufficiently

Jones v. Clinton

858 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 21, 1994

In such cases, courts are required to determine whether the alleged actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To decide whether an official is protected by qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

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

Nichols v. Jacobsen Construction Co.

811 Utah Adv. Rep. 47 · Utah Supreme Court · Apr 28, 2016

¶3 We conclude that Jacobsen qualifies as an “eligible employer” under the workers’ compensation statutes and has fulfilled all three of the above requirements, thereby qualifying for immunity from suit. … The court held that Jacobsen would not qualify for immunity “if a significant time passed” before Jacobsen started paying Mr. Nichols’ benefits. Id. ¶ 13.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

108 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 15, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified-Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

Blake v. Wilson

962 So. 2d 705 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Apr 17, 2007

Therefore, the officers are also entitled to summary judgment due to discretionary function immunity. Qualified Immunity ¶ 26. … well as qualified immunity. 5.

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

Barber v. Guay

910 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 1995

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. … Second, if the right is clearly established, qualified immunity will only be denied if a reasonable official should have known that the challenged conduct violated that established right.

DePree v. Saunders

588 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

First, if DePree’s speech was constitutionally protected, Saunders was entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Foley v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003).

(PC) Reed v. Racklin

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if 5 “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 14 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (in qualified immunity context, finding no clearly established right to be 15 free from feigned karate chops towards inmate’s body, including groin area).

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

John Entler v. Christine Gregoire

872 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2017

The magistrate judge also concluded that, regardless, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity “because Entler’s rights were not clearly established at the time he was sanctioned.” … There remains the issue of qualified immunity. Appellees would not be entitled to prevail if the constitutional right violated “was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City of San Francisco v.

S.P. v. City of Takoma Park

134 F.3d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 15, 1998

Thus, to defeat a qualified immunity defense, Peller must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established” in more than just a general sense. … to qualified immunity.

Browne v. Robb

583 A.2d 949 · Supreme Court of Delaware · Nov 5, 1990

The State Tort Claims Act grants, in part, general qualified immunity to certain state officials and employees. 10 Del.C. § 4001. … We have already recognized that a public defender is protected by qualified immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. See Vick v.

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff[s'] clearly established right." … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Moran v. Clarke

359 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 26, 2004

Id. 9 Appellants assert that the law was not clearly established. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the fact remains that qualified immunity is reserved for state officials whose conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at

Allen L. Fludd v. United States Secret Service Maurice Daugherty

771 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of