Case law

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.

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Brian Ulrich v. Pope County

715 F.3d 1054 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 21, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for civil damages when his ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … A police officer is therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes (1) that a plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the time of

Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson

799 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

But the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He has not done so. … clearly established at the time of their actions.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

Pritchard v. Arvon

186 W. Va. 445 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Such employee immunity is consistent generally with the political subdivision’s qualified immunity, and the employee immunity is reasonable in scope because the Act imposes employee liability for tort damages proximately … Clearly, the Act is reasonable in furthering the purpose for which it was enacted.

Powell v. Barrett

376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

Bartrug v. Rubin

986 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1997

However, there are no facts alleged which establish that these acts are violative of a “clearly established constitutional right.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials fi-om civil liability as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Hike v. Hall

427 N.W.2d 158 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 20, 1988

Conversely, in situations in which assistant state’s attorneys’ activities are not quasi-judicial and consequently are clothed only with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity applies as well to a claim that the state … of liberty ... the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.

Rome v. Romero

225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

Oliverio Martinez v. City of Oxnard Oxnard Police Department Art Lopez, Chief Maria Pena Andrew Salinas Ron Zavala, and Ben Chavez

270 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 30, 2001

Qualified immunity shields them “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.” … We must now determine whether the rights that Martinez alleges Chavez violated were clearly established by federal law.

Mglej v. Garfield County

974 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Once Gardner asserted qualified immunity, it was Mglej’s burden to show “that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, … The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Deputy Gardner qualified immunity on this excessive force claim.13 13 The clearly established Fourth Amendment violation that Mglej has alleged is that Deputy Gardner

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).