Case law

George Zilich v. Thomas Longo David Mack Nancy Marincic Rose Marie Lovano Joseph Suster Michael Abella and Wilhelm Spiegelberg

34 F.3d 359 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 3, 1994

We conclude that the resolution and ordinance are not a bill of attainder and that their passage did not violate plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights; therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity … We also agree with the findings of the district court that Zifich's First Amendment right of free speech was "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes.

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).

Subryan v. Regents of the University of Colorado

813 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 19, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … official violated the clearly established law.

Stinebaugh v. City of Wapakoneta

630 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

Thus, Stinebaugh established the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis — that his First Amendment rights were violated. See City of Elyria, 502 F.3d at 491 . B. Clearly Established Law. … “To determine whether a right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, this court look[s] first to decisions of the Supreme Court, then to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and

Wallace v. Moberly

947 S.W.2d 273 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 17, 1997

B) Qualified Immunity to § 1983 Claims In his second point of error, Wallace argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment because he is entitled to qualified immunity to Moberly’s federal law … Wallace is entitled to qualified immunity if he could have reasonably believed his actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Hunter v.

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.

Mucci v. Town of North Providence ex rel. Vallee

815 F. Supp. 2d 541 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity Officer defendants are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as to these claims.

Franz v. Lytle

791 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 15, 1992

Qualified immunity claims are governed by the objective albeit fact-intensive “clearly established law” standard enunciated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … ‘clearly established’ law.”

Knouse v. Primecare Med. of W. Va.

333 F. Supp. 3d 584 · United States District Court · Sep 24, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. … The court was asked to "define the right at issue" under a qualified immunity analysis: The defendant asked the court to frame the analysis as whether it is "clearly established that a prison medical provider runs afoul of

Phat's Bar & Grill v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government

918 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2013

Thus, Kentucky law adopts both an objective and a subjective approach to qualified immunity, whereas the federal law only provides immunity where the official objectively violated a person’s clearly established rights. … Because Officer Smith cannot prove that he did not violate Williams, Jr.’s clearly-established rights, Officer Smith’s claim to qualified official immunity on the Kentucky malicious prosecution claim must be denied.

Miller v. Spiers

434 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 7, 2006

This can be provided in the form of either absolute or qualified immunity. The amount and type of immunity granted a prosecutor depends on what activity is challenged. … Qualified immunity awaits more specifics.

Sharnick v. D'Archangelo

935 F. Supp. 2d 436 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 22, 2013

reasonable, as evaluated in the context of legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” … If the law was “clearly established, the [qualified] immunity defense ordinarily ... fail[s], since a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct.” Harlow v.

Bailey v. Kenney

791 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 16, 1992

Standards for Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to state actors who perform discretionary functions if their actions do not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … violated a clearly established federal right of plaintiff.

Richard Ceballos v. Gil Garcetti Frank Sundstedt Carol Najera County of Los Angeles

361 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established Even if Ceballos’s speech is constitutionally protected, the defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established … law is clearly established, and qualified immunity is therefore unavailable.

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.

Evans v. Ball

168 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

Hence, the restrictions were not a clearly established constitutional violation, and the allegation of seizure cannot abrogate qualified immunity. 1. … qualified immunity.

Van Dyke v. Washington

896 F. Supp. 183 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 3, 1995

However, "the defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions `from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … and (2) whether the constitutional standards implicated were clearly established at the time in question.

Williams v. Alabama State University

865 F. Supp. 789 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 12, 1994

Under this test, public officials performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be- within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

Gutierrez v. City of Indianapolis

886 F. Supp. 2d 984 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 13, 2012

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers are shielded “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that Officer Kermon is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Gutierrez’s excessive force claim.