Case 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.

Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

632 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The district court held, in the alternative, that “Clairmont’s First Amendment right was not so ‘clearly established’ as to preclude qualified immunity for Ms. Wilson.” … SOUND MENTAL HEALTH immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. “If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

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

Facey v. Dickhaut

91 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 30, 2014

a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

People v. Bylsma

294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

Austin v. Hamilton

945 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

Qualified Immunity 16 In assessing a defense of qualified immunity, the court must determine the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct by reference to the law clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional … That standard was clearly established at the time the challenged incident took place." 20 Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1461-62 (10th Cir.1991).

Edward v. GEC, LLC

67 V.I. 745 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Aug 1, 2017

However, it is equally “well-established that a party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” *756 Gov’t of the V.I. v. … Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions have repeatedly interpreted similar workers’ compensation immunity statutes as not establishing limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, but simply codifying affirmative defenses

Dixon v. Bannister

845 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 25, 2012

Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show a clearly established right to receive cosmetic dental services. … Plaintiff therefore has failed to demonstrate a clearly established right and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Sherin v. Department of Human Resources

229 Ga. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 4, 1997

(a) “Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In this factual setting, it cannot be said that Reid’s failure to tell the Sherins about the masturbation was objectively unreasonable so as to deprive her of qualified immunity.

D'Aoust v. Diamond

197 Md. App. 195 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 29, 2010

Qualified Immunity Having established that appellees are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity, we now come to the heart of the matter on appeal: whether the facts alleged and their permissible inferences would … “qualified” immunity.

Gyadu v. Frankl

62 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 23, 1999

Individuals are qualifiedly immune insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Thus, as to those remedies, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity. The motions to dismiss will be granted, on grounds of qualified immunity, as to the allegations of violations of 42 U.S.C.

Hulen v. Yates

322 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

Hulen received all process which is due, (2) Dean Costello was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. Even assuming that Dr. … Qualified Immunity Government officials who perform discretionary government functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Latson v. Clarke

249 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 20, 2017

A court deciding the applicability of qualified immunity must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385 . … Where a plaintiff “(1) 'allege[s] a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation,” a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. Evans v.

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

Gale v. Storti

608 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Hernandez v. Hines

159 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2001

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless the Plaintiffs demonstrate that they violated clearly established constitutional law. Schultea v. … The constitutional rights alleged to be violated *386 are “clearly established” for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

in a plea to the jurisdiction. 32 We held in Garcia I that “the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity” for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA. 33 However, the Legislature has waived immunity … The District incorrectly contends that our opinion in Garcia I did not actually address the issue of whether the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for school districts.