Case law

Bohn v. Waddell

164 Ariz. 74 · Arizona Tax Court · Apr 6, 1990

immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." … Defendants have pled the defense of a qualified immunity.

Leonard Foster v. Dustin Patrick

806 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 2015

Patrick Page 4 precluded an award of qualified immunity. Patrick filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Although it is true that the right must be clearly established in a “‘particularized’ sense,” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier v.

Doe v. LaDue

514 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 4, 2007

Plaintiffs allege that the OPD’s proactive monitoring approach violated Doe’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure 2 and that defendants are not entitled to qualified … As the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable. search and seizure is a well-established right, even for predatory offender registrants, qualified immunity does not protect the defendant officers. Cf.

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.

Walnut Properties, Inc. v. City of Whittier

861 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 9, 1988

or, alternatively, qualified immunity. … However, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, because we hold that the law did not clearly establish that the second ordinance was unconstitutional at the time it was enacted.

Hannah Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary

989 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brickey v. … needing to consider the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Crawford v. Kemp

139 P.3d 1249 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2006

With respect to Crawford’s constitutional claims, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established law and the information available to the officer at the time, a reasonable … entitled to qualified immunity so long as they did not violate "clearly established” law); see also Samaniego, 2 P.3d at 84 (applying the federal test for official immunity to a claim for excessive force). 13 .

Hathaway v. Stone

687 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 27, 1988

Even if it did, they further contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … As set out in Voutour , the standard for qualified immunity is whether a government official performing discretionary functions should reasonably have known that his or her actions violated clearly established statutory or

Jones v. Price

696 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Mar 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Price also has argued that good faith qualified immunity shields him from liability in this action because his conduct did not violate a clearly established right held by Jones. … Here, Price has failed to establish that he is shielded by qualified immunity.

Broam v. Bogan

320 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

, or the constitutional right was not clearly established on the date of the alleged violation. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Dull v. WEST MANCHESTER TP. POLICE DEPT.

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

The court may *749 eschew difficult constitutional issues and award qualified immunity to a defendant if it is apparent that the defendant did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time the defendant acted … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional *752 rights of which a reasonable person would have known

54 Fair empl.prac.cas. 737, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,401 Juanita Nicholson v. Georgia Department of Human Resources, (Dhr), James G. Ledbetter, Individually and in Official Capacity as Commissioner, Georgia Dept. Of Human Resources, Thomas R. Gaines, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Gene A. Wallace, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of Planning Research and Special Projects, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Paula McIntoch Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Director of Management Support Services, Dhr Division of Rehabilitative Services, Jane Shepard, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Director of Quality Assurance and Human Resources Development, Dhr Division of Rehabilitation Services

918 F.2d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

These defendants raised a defense of qualified immunity. … engaged in conduct violative of the clearly established right.

Newberry v. Board of County Commissioners

919 P.2d 141 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1996

Our statutory provision clearly is one in which immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. Vigil v. Ruettgers, 887 P.2d 521 (Wyo.1994); Hurst v. State, 698 P.2d 1130 (Wyo.1985). See Kimbley v. … If a statute employs a term which has a standard meaning, the term is presumably used in its ordinary and usual sense unless another sense is clearly intended. W.S. 8-1- *146 103(a)(i).

Parrish v. City of Wilmington

3 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2014

Stanforth further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id.). … Riley further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because in his view the law is not clearly established as to what process is due when an employee resigns (Id.).

Howard v. Wilkinson

305 F. Supp. 3d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 2, 2018

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 person would have known … The Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that the Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Woodlock v. Orange Ulster B.O.C.E.S.

281 F. App'x 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity* “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If the right at issue was not clearly established ... then qualified immunity shields the defendant.” Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 154 (2d Cir.2007).

Guerrero v. Deane

750 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 27, 2010

Qualified Immunity 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 … For purposes of the clearly established inquiry, “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Chesney v. City of Jackson

171 F. Supp. 3d 605 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 21, 2016

“The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Sheets, 287 F.3d at 586 . Application of the doctrine of qualified immunity entails two inquiries. … Thus, in determining whether a government official has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right under the second prong of the qualified immunity standard, a court must inquire whether “[t]he contours of the right

Magrum v. Meinke

332 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The officer, however, was still entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not “say that it was clearly established as of February 20, 2001, that a police officer may not detain an individual exiting a house reportedly

Maye v. Reno

231 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered,...