Case law

Texas A&M University Texas A&M University System Dr. Jerry Gaston And Eugene Ray v. Don Thompson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 18, 2003

Appellants assert the protection of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and quasi-judicial or official immunity against Thompson’s numerous claims. … was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right.

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Nero v. Mosby

233 F. Supp. 3d 463 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 27, 2017

The shield of qualified immunity is lost when a government official (1) violates a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. Graham v. … That is, the right must have been clearly established at the time of events at issue. See Graham v. Gagnon, 831 F.3d 176, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). See discussion of qualified immunity below. .

Neuberger v. Gordon

567 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jul 21, 2008

For qualified immunity purposes, a right is considered clearly established only if “[t]he contours of the right ... … As a result, the “unlawful intent inherent in ... retaliatory action places it beyond the scope of ... qualified immunity if the right retaliated against was clearly established.” DeLoach, 922 F.2d at 620 .

Hodge v. Village of Southampton

838 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hunsucker argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim. … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Gordon v. Sadasivan

144 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1985

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendant knew of should have known. … We also find that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Tunnell v. Crosby

657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson 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.”

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

Sonoda v. Cabrera

255 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 3, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants, to the extent they have been sued in their individual capacities for violation of § 1983, have raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. … Because Sonoda has established a constitutional violation based upon due process, it is necessary to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Chambers v. Pennycook

641 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2011

right was clearly established. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the right that was violated was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 816.

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.

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

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

Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

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.

Smith v. Tolley

960 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 4, 1997

Baker, 825 F.2d 772, 774 (4th Cir.1987). 22 This is because “... there are two levels on which the immunity shield operates. First, the particular right must be clearly established in the law. … Therefore, Tolley is entitled to qualified immunity.

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).

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.