Case law

Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Suffolk County

87 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2015

Even if a state actor deprives an individual of his constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields that government official from civil liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In particular, the Second Circuit has held that courts should cloak defendants with qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage "only 'if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the

Maher ex rel. Estate of Maher v. Oklahoma ex rel. Tourism & Recreation Department

165 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 29, 2016

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’ ” Wood v. … Qualified Immunity The Court must still consider whether Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome Defendant Young’s defense of qualified immunity.

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.

Reed v. Sheppard

321 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 17, 2018

qualified immunity because, following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Samson , supra , it is not clearly established that some particularized suspicion is required before searching a parolee or his residence. … Because "[i]t is unclear whether the Second Circuit's decisions are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Samson ," "the right is not 'clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Id.

Oden v. Reader

935 S.W.2d 470 · Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · Nov 26, 1996

To be entitled to summary judgment on the affirmative defense of qualified official immunity, Oden must establish that: (1) his position as county attorney has quasi-judicial status; (2) it was within his authority as county … Thus, the first two prongs of the qualified immunity defense have been proven by Oden.

Williams v. Morahan

539 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2013

Under well-established precedent, Officer Morahan is entitled to qualified immunity unless Mr. … None of those authorities, however, can create clearly established law for purposes of federal qualified immunity analysis. See Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1033 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (en banc). Cf.

Raymond E. Humphrey v. Duane M. Mabry Kevin George and Kevin Wheeler

482 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, we move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. 2. Were the rights “clearly established”?

Schmidt v. Gray

399 F. App'x 925 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 26, 2010

Qualified Immunity Gray’s first two claims on appeal attack the district court’s qualified immunity analysis. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jackson v. Bush

448 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2006

Accordingly, only in cases where an official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” can he be denied immunity. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … R.Civ.P. 25(d), a qualified immunity defense primarily serves to immunize un-served defendants Ashcroft, Rove, and Libby.

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc.

624 So. 2d 1239 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1993

forth criteria for application of the qualified immunity. … conditions. [7] Had the legislature of this state envisioned that there is but one criteria for the application of the qualified immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.

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.

Sadallah v. City of Utica

383 F.3d 34 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2004

] reasonable[] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. … Because plaintiffs have failed to establish a due process claim or any other violation of federal law, their claims are without merit. Accordingly, Hanna is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Torres v. Runyon

80 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 2003

If the official violated a constitutional right, he or she nonetheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established such that a reasonable official “would understand that what he is doing … The next prong of the qualified immunity analysis is “ ‘a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Gragg v. Kentucky Cabinet for Workforce Development

289 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2002

Garrett, 880 S.W.2d 530, 534 (Ky.1994)) To prevail against a defense of qualified immunity a plaintiff must first establish the constitutional right that she claims was violated by the defendants. Wilson v. … She must then demonstrate that this right was clearly established at the time of the infringement.

Hall v. Jones

453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015

The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

Hyland v. Wonder

117 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 1997

The defendants asserted qualified immunity. … The district court granted the individual defendants summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, finding that it was not “clearly established” in 1989 that a government volunteer possessed the same First Amendment

Shelton v. Angelone

148 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2001

“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.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-819 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Anderson v.

Megan Winfrey v. Keith Pikett

872 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

He contends that the district court erred in denying him qualified immunity because the scent lineups did not violate Megan’s clearly established constitutional rights for two reasons. … violated clearly established law.”

Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police

71 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 1995

The officers contend that the district court erred because they are shielded from Orsatti's claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 7 Because we find that the undisputed material facts of record establish that it was … Finding that the right at issue was clearly established, however, does not end the court's inquiry. Nor does the court's decision turn merely on whether the official violated that clearly established right.