Case law

Sutton v. Village of Valley Stream, NY

96 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 2000

A government official claiming qualified immunity bears the burden of proving either: (1) that the conduct alleged did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) that it was … established” so as to defeat a claim for qualified immunity.

Reed v. Iranon

940 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Sep 13, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v.

Rehberg v. Paulk

611 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory … immunity because Rehberg’s right to be free from a retaliatory investigation is not clearly established.

Tiscareno v. Anderson

639 F.3d 1016 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 14, 2011

Because such an obligation was not clearly established, we conclude that Anderson was entitled to qualified immunity. … Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity because he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law.

Tague v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

390 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2005

the clearly established right to work. 42 Plaintiff then cites Harlow v. … Qualified immunity’s protection exists as long as the official’s conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

Showers v. Spangler

957 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1997

of clearly established law.” … While we conclude here that Johnson is correct in so finding, we must also conclude that this was not clearly established law in April of 1993. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. D.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 513, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 835 Mary Ann Carlo v. City of Chino, and Officer Hector Guerra

105 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Further, the court held that even if such a right does exist, it was not clearly established when Carlo was arrested; and, therefore, Guerra was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity asks what law was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. In 1991, the Helms test was the clearly established law.

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.

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.

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.

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

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