Case law

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.

Phillips v. Wiseman

64 O.B.A.J. 2317 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Jul 20, 1993

The defendant/Commissioner now seeks a writ of prohibition in this Court based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. The defendant/State of Oklahoma also claims immunity. … Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla.1990) we explained that qualified immunity shields an official from damages insofar as the official’s conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jerry Nelson v. Keyvon Sellers

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2024

clearly established law.” … Nelson’s Right Was Clearly Established. All that remains is “the clearly established prong of the qual- ified immunity inquiry.” Helm v.

Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts

27 F. Supp. 3d 962 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995). … Even so, named defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ allegedly violated constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time.

Palmieri v. Kammerer

690 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person … Thus, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied on this basis. ii Protective Sweep/Grab Area There is no doubt that the law regarding protective sweeps was “clearly established” under Maryland v.

Williams v. Morahan

539 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1033 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). Cf.

Kirkland v. St. Vrain Valley School District No. Re-1J

464 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

After a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right … This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our 5 If “the plaintiff successfully establishes the violation of a clearly established right, the burden shifts

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.

Pasqualone v. Gately

422 Mass. 398 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 5, 1996

As the Supreme Court stated in *403 Anderson, supra at 639 , “[pjlaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by … Although we have no doubt that Gately violated Pasqualone’s clearly established constitutional rights, we must acknowledge that this case exposes a gap in our law.

Poteet v. Sullivan

218 S.W.3d 780 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Were the constitutional rights violated by Officers Sullivan and Lucio clearly established?

Bibeau v. Pacific Northwest Research Foundation

188 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 1999

Heller's assistant) contend that as government contractors that did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity and liability under section 1983. 7 Generally, the key question to be answered for purposes of qualified immunity is whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts.

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.

Navorro-Monzo v. Hughes

297 Ark. 444 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 17, 1989

Both of these cases concerned qualified privilege or immunity. … It was clearly a privileged publication. Neither the allegations in the complaint nor other matters presented to the court, even if established at trial, would support a finding of malice.

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.

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

863 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … Second, the district court held that Santos and Cavazos were entitled to qualified immunity because how existing law applied to the facts was not clearly established.

Jackson v. Bush

448 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2006

Accordingly, only in cases where an official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” can he be denied immunity. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … R.Civ.P. 25(d), a qualified immunity defense primarily serves to immunize un-served defendants Ashcroft, Rove, and Libby.

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.

Hall v. Trochessett

105 F.4th 335 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. … We will now determine whether there was a clearly established right.

Moore v. City of Wynnewood

57 F.3d 924 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity shields Sanders from liability and the burden of having to go to trial unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Shattuck v. Town of Stratford

233 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 13, 2002

Even where the plaintiffs, federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … violate” clearly established constitutional rights).