Case law

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Patrick v. Lewis

397 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 28, 2005

Defendants argue that Officers Lewis and Wilson are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the seizure and booking of Patrick because their conduct was reasonable and there is no clearly established right to forced … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test, they would be unable to satisfy the “clearly established” prong. Cf. Davis v.

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

B.R. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 14, 2018

Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court’s finding that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

Smith v. Smith

589 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 28, 2009

was clearly established." … In evaluating Nurse Smith’s motion to dismiss and her claim to qualified immunity, the district court found that "the general Eighth Amendment right at issue was clearly estab- lished at the time of the events alleged in

Stucchio v. Tincher

726 So. 2d 372 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1999

Clearly this testimony is absolutely privileged. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992). Suppose the information was divulged not in court but in a pretrial deposition. … Clearly, the law before Fridovich established an absolute privilege for a statement made "that had some relation" to a judicial proceeding.

Joyner v. Greiner

195 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2002

POINT III DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suits arising from performance of their discretionary functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly … Whether an offi *508 cial may invoke qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” when the action was

Tamara Brand v. Kevin Casal

877 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2017

“Clearly Established” Law Having concluded that Deputy Pardinas’s conduct violated a constitutional right, the next question in our qualified immunity analysis is whether that constitutional right was “clearly established … Brand’s right to bodily privacy was clearly established. We affirm the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Brands’ bodily-privacy claim. 17 IV.

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Sisinia Pro v. Ronald Donatucci. Ronald Donatucci, Register of Wills

81 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1996

As we summarized in In re City of Philadelphia Litig.: If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent … to qualified immunity.

United States v. Holcomb

132 F.4th 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 27, 2025

As our qualified immunity cases make clear, an officer is immune from civil suit where the plaintiff’s rights were not “clearly established” at the time of his alleged misconduct. Ballentine v. … HOLCOMB circuit[,] . . . there still might not be clearly established case law in our circuit to withstand qualified immunity.” Id.

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

Armstrong v. Ashley

918 F.3d 419 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2019

A decision on qualified immunity can be an appealable final decision, "but only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts[.]" … Typically, this determination is a decision on "whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established." Behrens v.

Kelsea Mercer v. Athens Cnty., Ohio

72 F.4th 152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2023

Qualified Immunity Nurse Gray, Officer Lowery, and Officer Jarvis assert qualified immunity. … Moreover, “[w]hen federal qualified immunity and Ohio state-law immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6) rest on the same questions of material fact, we may review the state-law immunity defense ‘through the lens of the federal qualified

Torian v. City of Beckley

963 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 1997

Defendant Sweeney clearly is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in regard to the federal constitutional claim. … Law enforcement officers are immune from § 1983 liability arising from official discretionary acts that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Smith v. King

615 So. 2d 69 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Mar 19, 1993

The concept of qualified or substantive governmental immunity as a defense against tort liability under certain circumstances is well established in the law of this State. … Having concluded that seclusion was called for, Gibson followed established procedures.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

213 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 30, 2002

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 … After finding that the law governing the Saucier’s conduct was clearly established, the Ninth Circuit proceeded to consider whether the officer’s conduct was reasonable in light of the clearly established law.

Heard v. Dulayev

29 F.4th 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 29, 2022

The defendants argued Dulayev was entitled to qualified immunity because Dulayev’s alleged actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under clearly established law. … “In cases where we . . . resolve [the related] claim under the clearly- established-law prong” of the qualified immunity defense, however, “we have repeatedly declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over

Mglej v. Garfield County

974 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 9, 2020

Once Gardner asserted qualified immunity, it was Mglej’s burden to show “that (1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation, … The district court, therefore, did not err in denying Deputy Gardner qualified immunity on this excessive force claim.13 13 The clearly established Fourth Amendment violation that Mglej has alleged is that Deputy Gardner