Case law

Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio

615 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity In evaluating qualified immunity claims, we “[f]irst . . . determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established … immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’”

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children

Burhans v. Lopez

24 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2014

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” DiStiso v. … Finally, Silver asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under state and city law.

Daniel J. Leveto v. Robert A. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

B. 11 The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … See Brown, 922 F.2d at 1118-19 (recognizing that the clearly established requirement "may produce distressing results," but finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

Peter Antonellis v. Department of Elder Affairs and Ann Hartsein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Elder Affairs

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

Even if Plaintiff establishes these three elements, a Defendant escapes liability if he or she shows an entitlement to qualified immunity, an affirmative defense. DiMarco C Zappa v. … clearly established rights."

Nibbs v. Roberts

31 V.I. 196 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Feb 8, 1995

light of clearly established law and the information the ... officer[] possessed. … Although appellant never expressly raised the defense of qualified immunity in his answer to the complaint, we nevertheless discuss generally the parameters of the defense since the trial court instructed the jury on qualified

Troy Baker, and Glenn Snader, as Father and Next Friend of Jesse Snader v. City of Hamilton, Ohio, and Eric Taylor

471 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 2006

If the plaintiff establishes that a constitutional violation occurred, a court must next consider “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … When a defendant raises a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Silberstein v.

Olson v. Johnson

961 So. 2d 356 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 29, 2007

Alternatively, Johnson asserts that a qualified privilege is applicable and is sufficient to defeat Olson's claim. We conclude that neither an absolute nor a qualified privilege applies here. … Sovereign Immunity Does Not Apply Finally, Johnson has failed to explain how her actions in filing the police affidavit could possibly be protected by sovereign immunity.

McRae v. Tena

914 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 25, 1996

Qualified Immunity The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that the defense of qualified immunity is available to police officers in excessive force cases. See, e.g., Scott v. … The Supreme Court eschewed generalizing of the “clearly established right” factor.

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.

Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n v. Forst

88 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 3, 1996

On appeal, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity principally because at the pertinent times it was not clearly established that tape-recording telephone calls, without ever listening to them, violated … Summary judgment dismissing a claim on the basis of the defendants’ qualified-immunity defense may thus be granted if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that,

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

952 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

John Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky

860 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2017

Defendant Simpson fails to show this procedure is inapplicable in cases involving qualified immunity.4 The concerns that support determining qualified immunity at the earliest stage of litigation are not present … As qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” it becomes essentially meaningless if a case wrongfully goes to trial. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231.

Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino

157 N.E.3d 406 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Additionally, the defendant officers asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the appellants’ Section 1983 claim because their conduct “did not violate a clearly established federal right which a reasonable … Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to overcome the qualified immunity and establish the deprivation of a federally protected constitutional right.

Trugreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott

512 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2007

Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit alleging RICO claim because rights that served as basis of claim were not clearly established … Although it is well settled that qualified immunity is not analyzed in identical terms as are the merits of Scott’s RICO claim, in these circumstances' — where Duebner is clearly entitled to summary judgment and has already

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Kerns v. Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo County

707 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 12, 2010

They argued that, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they were still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established … Wilkie that the plaintiff had a clearly established Fifth-Amendment right to exclude others from his property, so qualified immunity was inappropriate for retaliation for the exercise of that clearly established right.

Mattingly v. Mitchell

425 S.W.3d 85 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 21, 2013

Although Prater involved a claim of absolute immunity, the rule is logically extended to a claim of qualified official immunity. … Our Supreme Court held teachers assigned to supervise a school-sponsored baseball practice were not entitled to qualified official immunity because the school had an established rule that children were required to wear batting