Case law

Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

902 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … “When . . . a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense . . . [t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established . . .

Prager v. LaFAVER

5 F. Supp. 2d 906 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 10, 1998

Once a defendant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. … City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1487 (11th Cir.1992) (rejecting the qualified immunity defense at the motion to dismiss stage, but emphasizing defendants’ right to assert the qualified immunity defense in subsequent proceedings

Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, Maryland

309 F.3d 224 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 30, 2002

official's conduct did not violate clearly established law." … qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v.

Carew v. Centracchio

17 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 4, 1998

Such officials have qualified immunity if they can prove either of the following: “the federal law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, or ... at summary judgment, there is … no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent a finding that the defendants’ actions, with regard to applying or following such clearly established law, were objectively *59 reasonable.”

Raymond D. Jackson v. Duncan A. McIntosh David Victorino

90 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 1996

The doctors moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The doctors appeal. … ANALYSIS The doctors contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law requiring *332 them to provide a kidney transplant to a prisoner on dialysis.

Eggleton v. Gluch

717 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 13, 1989

I conclude that qualified immunity does not apply in either instance because the law was clearly defined in each of these areas. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

McCabe v. Caleel

739 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Application of the qualified immunity concept to McCabe’s situation is simple: It has not been “clearly established” even now, let alone when Board’s members acted back in the late 1970s, that the fact (if it is a fact) of

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.”

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.

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

Tyquan Stewart v. Parkview Hospital

940 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2019

Police officers enjoy immunity from liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or consti‐ tutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. … In these circumstances, Stewart cannot establish that the officers violated a right clearly established under the Fourth Amendment, and qualified immunity ap‐ plies. Id.; see also Wilson v.

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

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.