Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 19, 2001

The city might further face liability under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , for the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Smith v. Anderson

874 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a clearly establish statutory or constitutional right. Id. … In such circumstances, the officers responsible for their detention are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. That is the situation here.

Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.

295 S.W.3d 91 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2009

Despite the frequency of opinions on the subject from this Court, the law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrines of governmental immunity, official immunity, and qualified official immunity, is still difficult to … Under this test, the Court concluded, “our constitutional fathers would not view this activity as qualifying for sovereign immunity.” Id.

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2010

immunity. 4 Specifically, the court held that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs by licensed chiropractors in California was legal. … In its December 24, 2009 order the court held that because it was not clearly established that the performance of MUAs was lawful, defendants Weydert and Coffey were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ claims under

Robbins v. Regents of University of California

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2005

The trial court agreed that Suris was entitled to immunity, finding there was no evidence of a constitutional violation (and even if there was such a violation, it was not one of clearly established law), by virtue of LaVine … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Rivers v. O'BRIEN

83 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 21, 2000

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to … In order to trump qualified immunity, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) Defendants’ conduct violated any of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights; and (2) that these rights would have been known to a reasonable

Thompson v. Williamson County, Tenn.

965 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 17, 1997

the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights. … In other words, if genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants actually did commit acts that would violate a clearly established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper.

Brown v. Smythe

780 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 1992

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity serves to insulate governmental officials from liability for civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The defendants bear the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity, and a plaintiff may overcome the official’s defense by demonstrating that his or her clearly established rights were knowingly or recklessly

Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.

763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

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.

James Carver, Administrator of the Estate of David Allen Carver, Deceased v. City of Cincinnati

474 F.3d 283 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 18, 2007

repeatedly without ever becoming clearly established. … Therefore, the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. III. CONCLUSION The Cincinnati police officers and EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lehman v. Robinson

228 F. App'x 697 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 16, 2007

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Second, and only if a constitutional right was violated, we consider whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would believe the alleged conduct was unlawful.

Orraca Figueroa v. Torres Torres

288 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 2003

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants have moved for summary judgment, alleging that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners

637 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 5, 2009

Plaintiff further argues that “qualified immunity should be denied, because it is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally-protected interest … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, I must determine whether Plaintiffs First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming

821 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

It is sufficient to hold that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, Officer Riggs did not violate clearly established law, and he therefore was protected by qualified immunity. … Turning to the clearly established law question, we must first ask whether the Ohio law defining obstruction of official business is clearly established. We conclude that it is.

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

816 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2016

The officers were not “plainly incompetent” and did not “knowingly violate” clearly established law when they made these arrests. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined” at a high level of generality. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1776, slip op. at 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Doss v. Gilkey

649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.