Case law

Evans v. Ball

168 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

Hence, the restrictions were not a clearly established constitutional violation, and the allegation of seizure cannot abrogate qualified immunity. 1. … qualified immunity.

Choice L. Causey Henretta Denise Bradley v. City of Bay City John May Thomas Pletzke, Joseph E. Doyle Eric Sporman Ken Souser

442 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” 2 Id.

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

260 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. “First, we must examine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right.” … FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Under the first prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right. See Evans v.

Chu v. Mississippi State University

901 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2012

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Qualified immunity bars suit against state officials “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Pruitt v. West Virginia Department of Public Safety

222 W. Va. 290 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2008

to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Accordingly, under Chase Securities, Trooper Kane would enjoy immunity from personal liability for official acts if his conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known and

Slingluff v. State

131 Haw. 239 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Therefore, their actions were not protected by a qualified immunity. … Paderes are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Circuit Court did not err when it denied their motion for summary judgment. B.

Anela v. City of Wildwood

595 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 1984

The defendant next argues that immunity law developed in the § 1983 context entitles him to a qualified immunity. This argument, the court believes, has some merit. … It is difficult to say that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Knouse v. Primecare Med. of W. Va.

333 F. Supp. 3d 584 · United States District Court · Sep 24, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. … The court was asked to "define the right at issue" under a qualified immunity analysis: The defendant asked the court to frame the analysis as whether it is "clearly established that a prison medical provider runs afoul of

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

380 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 30, 2019

Clearly Established Right "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." Kisela v. … Assuming this result will obtain-as the Court must at summary judgment-Pollard's warrantless entry violated Plaintiffs' clearly established rights. The Court, therefore, denies Pollard qualified immunity.

Lipson v. Anesthesia Services, P.A.

790 A.2d 1261 · Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 3, 2001

Arguably, if ASPA could establish that it provides health care services (which clearly it does) and that it “follows a formal peer review process,” its governing body would qualify as a “professional review body” when engaged … Delaware clearly recognizes “a qualified privilege of employers to make communications regarding the character, qualifications, or job performance of an employee or former employee to those who have a legitimate interest

M.W. Ex Rel. T.W. v. Madison County Board of Education

262 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … was clearly established.

Daboul v. Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary

64 Va. Cir. 499 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Apr 10, 2002

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. ...

Duhani v. Town of Grafton

52 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2014

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to decide ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established … Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Bradley v. Arkansas Department of Education

301 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2002

“If no ... right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Id. … In other words, “[i]f the law did not put [the defendant] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v.

Nicole K. Brinkman v. City of Des Moines, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 11, 2023

Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the 3 The court applied only the particularity and plausibility … Id. at 782−84.  7 extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this case, and we already have concluded that qualified immunity is not operative

Martel, et al. v. Town of Chichester, et al.

2013 DNH 098 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 18, 2013

Qualified Immunity - Adinolfo “‘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 … Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right, Adinolfo is entitled to qualified immunity. 14  The Martels contend, nevertheless, that a reasonable police

Secot v. City of Sterling Heights

985 F. Supp. 715 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 10, 1997

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Frohm is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. As held by the Sixth Circuit in Adams , the right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is a clearly established right.

Oswald v. Graves

819 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 26, 1993

Qualified Immunity In his motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or