Case law

Wilson v. State

84 Wash. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1996

A plaintiff seeking to rebut a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity must demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct interfered with a clearly established constitutional right. White, 78 Wn. App. at 837 . … Thus, Wilson has failed to show that defendants interfered with his "clearly established” constitutional free speech rights. Consequently, the individual defendants may claim the defense of qualified immunity.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

161 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

(en banc), cert. denied , — - U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997) (explaining that decisions from only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity). … immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right

Cook v. City of Topeka

232 Kan. 334 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Dec 3, 1982

Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 [, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 , 98 S.Ct. 855 ] (1978) (qualified immunity for prison officials and officers); Imbler v. … Clearly the routine duty to recall a bench warrant upon payment of the fine cannot be construed as a quasi-judicial act.

Coen v. Runner

854 F.2d 374 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1988

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Coen’s contention that Runner and Lassi-ter acted under color of state law to abridge his clearly established constitutional rights is threefold.

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

Hynson v. City of Chester, Legal Department

864 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1988

This is the essence of the constitutional right which the plaintiffs must show was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation in order to negate the police officers' qualified immunity. B. … know, we first addressed the nature of the right claimed before determining whether it was clearly established at the time of the conduct. 26 The reference to clearly established rights in Harlow and Stoneking means more

Sterrett v. Cowan

85 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 4, 2015

Clearly Established Defendants argue that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since they did not violate Sterrett’s constitutional rights and that the rights alleged and procedures sought by Sterrett are not “clearly … In response, Sterrett argues that the rights he asserts, are clearly established and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rodriguez v. Laredo Independent School District

82 F. Supp. 2d 679 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 2, 2000

Superintendent Cruz CV Qualified Immunity .In Harlow v. … ’s actions did not violate ... clearly established First Amendment rights.”).

Richard Pike v. J. Hester

891 F.3d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law The conclusion that Hester violated Pike’s constitutional rights does not end our qualified immunity inquiry. We must also ask whether Hester’s conduct violated clearly established law. … If the right was not clearly established, Hester is entitled to qualified immunity.

Eddie Humes, Sr. v. Misty Jones

109 F.4th 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray asserted qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment, which the district court 1 denied in relevant part. … Thus, the right that Humes asserts was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray’s motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.

Demoret v. Zegarelli

451 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2006

I Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … clearly established law.

Judy Baker Mary Allison and Bonnie Johnson v. Pat Hadley, Columbiana County Auditor

72 F.3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 1995

The Supreme Court has also instructed that when analyzing whether a right is clearly established, the court must carefully define the right at issue: 9 The operation of this ["clearly established law"] standard, however, … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Julian Betton v. David Belue

942 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 5, 2019

Officer Belue appeals only the court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … The burden of establishing the affirmative defense of qualified immunity rests on the party seeking to invoke it. Id.

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

Woodard v. Mennella

861 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 25, 1994

disposing of claims barred by qualified immunity.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an official is liable for damages only where his or her conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

921 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 5, 2013

constitute.a violation of clearly established law.” … The question for the Court is whether the rights were clearly established to a reasonable person. The Court concludes they were, and denies qualified immunity.

Tyner v. Department of Social & Health Services

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First *561 Amendment claim because “[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one’s supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the “law clearly proscribed the actions” they took.

Chance v. Coquille Indian Tribe

327 Or. 318 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1998

Defendants deny that the *322 contract or any other legal document of the Tribe contains anything that qualifies as a waiver of sovereign immunity. … Defendants argue that the quoted contract provision is incomprehensible and cannot qualify as an unequivocal waiver of immunity.