Case law

Terry Lee Passmore Swann v. Southern Health

388 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. 132 F3d. at 1367 (emphasis added) (citations omitted

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

Transit Authority of River City v. Bibelhauser

432 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 27, 2013

Governmental immunity is granted to agencies that have been established by an immune entity and that perform a “ ‘function integral to state government.’ ” Comair, Inc. v. … First, the court is to examine the origin, or “parent,” of the entity to determine if the entity is an agency (or alter ego) of a clearly immune parent. Id.

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.

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 19, 2019

Instead, “[i]n the context of a qualified immunity defense on an unlawful search or arrest claim, we ascertain whether a defendant violated clearly established law by asking whether there was ‘arguable probable cause’ … Even if Plaintiff could get past the first prong of qualified immunity by establishing a constitutional violation, he would still lose on the second prong.

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.

Scott R. Rushing v. Estate of Ernest R. Mincey

599 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

“[Q]ualified 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 person would have … 3 were clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

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.

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

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

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.