Case law

Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled- to qualified immunity because “their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

Armendariz v. Penman

31 F.3d 860 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 1, 1994

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity if plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a federal claim, Siegert, 500 U.S. at 233 , 111 S.Ct. at 1793-94 ; or if in light of clearly established principles … Clearly Established The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Baker v.

Bender v. City of Seattle

99 Wash. 2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1983

We believe a qualified privilege will adequately protect police officers in releasing information to the public and press. It is then the plaintiff's burden to establish an abuse of that qualified privilege to recover. … Seattle Times, supra at 492 n.5, proof of an abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not simply by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ronald K. Drewitt v. Fred L. Pratt Pizza Hut of America, Inc., City of Norfolk, Party-In-Interest

999 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 22, 1993

Accordingly, because no clearly established constitutional right was violated, the district court held that Officer Pratt was clearly entitled to qualified immunity on such claim. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one "clearly established,” or that, though "clearly established,” (and violated), it was one that a

McKinney ex rel. McKinney v. DeKalb County

997 F.2d 1440 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1993

The issue on this appeal of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is a purely legal one: first, whether there was a clearly established constitutional right, and second, whether, viewed most favorably to … Under the test for qualified immunity, Officer Nelsen could avoid liability for discretionary functions if his alleged conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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

Brawley v. Punt

186 F. Supp. 3d 1102 · District Court, D. Montana · May 11, 2016

On the other hand, because the law may not be clearly established, Officer Punt could be entitled to qualified immunity as a mat *1109 ter of law. The constitutional question is addressed first below. See Plumhoff v. … 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

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

Jeffries v. Ayoub

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 23, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable … If, as a matter of law, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time, then Ayoub is qualifiedly immune.

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.

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.

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.

Fuller v. Truncale

50 So. 3d 25 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 2, 2010

In the motion to dismiss, Fuller claimed judicial immunity against the class action, arguing he was simply following protocol established in several administrative orders. … Exposito, 824 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating ”[b]ecause qualified immunity protects an individual from having to defend a suit, O'Brien will effectively lose his entitlement to qualified immunity if the case proceeds

Cleavinger v. Saxner

474 U.S. 193 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 10, 1985

To be sure, the line between absolute immunity and qualified immunity often is not an easy one to perceive and structure. … Petitioners state that they have not challenged — although they do not concede— the ruling that they violated “clearly established constitutional rights” of respondents. See Brief for Petitioners 7, n. 8.

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.

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.