Case law

Okwa v. Harper

360 Md. 161 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 28, 2000

... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken. … In determining whether Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity from Appellants’ § 1983 claim we first look to the relevant “legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time” which governed Appellees actions during

Pearce v. Estate of Longo

766 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

to qualified immunity. … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Larry D. Jr. and Pamela Pyles v. Mason Co. Fair, Inc.

239 W. Va. 882 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2017

under the Act are legal determinations capable of and demanding resolution at this juncture of the litigation rather than at the appellate stage.15 Because the principles of governmental immunity clearly apply to the facts … Pack, 223 W.Va. 828, 831, 679 S.E.2d 660, 663 (2009) (affirming “need for early resolution of immunity rulings” and holding that summary judgment ruling predicated on qualified immunity is subject to immediate appeal under

Miller v. Clinton County

544 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2008

The court concluded that Judge Saxton had not established that he was entitled to qualified immunity because the record did not support his claim that he had not violated Miller’s clearly established constitutional rights … Discussion The doctrine 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

Danielle Ex Rel. Komando v. Adriazola

284 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 4, 2003

However, individual government employees acting within the scope of their official duties enjoy the defense of qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Defendants further contend that, even if Plaintiff does state a claim under § 1983, that violation of these state rules was not clearly established, and, therefore, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Tunnell v. Office of Public Defender

583 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1984

If the law was not clearly established, the defendant will prevail on summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2739 , unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew … If, on the other hand, the applicable law was clearly established, then, as the Court noted in Harlow , it should have been known to “a reasonably competent public official,” and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily

SMITH v. MCKINNEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 6, 2023

As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on to the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011). … clearly established when the conduct took place. , 905 F.3d at 716.

Perez v. ZAYAZ

396 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity. In the alternative, defendants have raised qualified immunity defense. … A qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Poteet v. Sullivan

218 S.W.3d 780 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Were the constitutional rights violated by Officers Sullivan and Lucio clearly established?

Steven Hyer v. City and County of Honolulu

118 F.4th 1044 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 23, 2024

The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity with respect to the use of a police dog because the law was not clearly established.  HYER V. … Indeed, “[e]ven if a government official violates a constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” Andrews v.

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.

James Wilburn Feagley v. Bill Waddill, Superintendent, Abilene State School

868 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

In denying this motion, the district court determined that a cause of action under section 1983 had been asserted and that none of the defendants had established entitlement to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court further refined the principles of qualified immunity by holding that the right allegedly violated by the defendant’s conduct “must have been ‘clearly

Van De Yacht v. the City of Wausau

661 F. Supp. 2d 1026 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Oct 13, 2009

on the ground of qualified immunity. … one is enough to establish the defense of qualified immunity.

Hanse v. Phillips

276 Ga. App. 558 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 29, 2005

Supreme Court has held that “qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. at 124 (1). … And this “provides persuasive reasons for resolving the issue of... qualified immunity as early as possible in the legal proceedings.” Id.

Steven M. Harrison v. John Dahm, Etc.

911 F.2d 37 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 23, 1990

The standard for qualified immunity is well established. In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.

Smiley v. Alabama Department of Transportation

778 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 30, 2011

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . 14 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the officials conduct violated a clearly established federal right. Anderson v. … The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, in the qualified immunity context, that the right to be free from employment discrimination on the basis of race is clearly established. See, e.g., Rioux v.

Hemphill v. Hale

677 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 10, 2012

The court later denied the motion, finding that Hale was not entitled to qualified immunity. … We review de novo the court’s determination that Hale is not entitled to qualified immunity, and we must decide whether the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Hemphill, established a constitutional violation,

Washington v. Starke

855 F.2d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 1988

or not qualified immunity exists. … clearly established law.’

Randy James Barber, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Robert Barber, Deceased v. City of Salem, Ohio

953 F.2d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 7, 1992

Because there was no clearly established right to a suicide prevention facility for pretrial detainees, the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … In reaching our decision regarding the police officers’ qualified immunity in Da-nese, we considered the law clearly established at the time of the decedent’s suicide.

BARLOW EX REL. MONCEBAIZ v. Owens

400 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 22, 2005

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right and because Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly-established … Conclusions Because Defendants’ actions in investigating the neighbor’s report, detaining Moncebaiz, and then arresting him were not unreasonable in light of clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity