Case law

Navajo Nation v. Crockett

7 Navajo Rptr. 237 · Navajo Nation Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1996

Qualified Immunity NAPI argues that in the absence of a showing of bad faith and gross negligence, an official who violates a person’s rights guaranteed by the Navajo Nation Bill of Rights is entitled to qualified immunity … Individual Navajo Nation officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Hunt v. Green

376 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 30, 2005

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established law,”, the order denying summary … Even assuming a constitutional violation occurred, however, the Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established in this area.

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

Larry E. Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs Andy Dalton Jay Henges John Powell Jerry J. Presley David Hurlbut

89 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. 3 Harlow v.

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Dempsey v. Denver Police Department

353 P.3d 928 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 21, 2015

hazards" as "rain, fog, smoke, crowded traffic conditions, or many pedestrians crossing and re-crossing the roadway, perhaps unlawfully, after a parade, or the like," and noting that those kinds of conditions had not been established … zone from so qualifying.

Jordan Jones v. George Solomon

90 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

“To overcome an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the … Under binding case law, however, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee

290 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 27, 2003

Qualified Immunity Sullivan argues that even if he violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights summary judgment must be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Hines v. Proper

442 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2006

Qualified immunity extends to a government official if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”

Williams v. United States

348 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2017

In short, qualified immunity clearly obtains here. … Williams' rights were "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation.

Locurto v. Safir

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.

Ferreira v. Town of East Hampton

56 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2014

However, in holding that government actors enjoyed qualified immunity for conducting a war-rantless abatement of a public nuisance, the Second Circuit has held that Tyler did not clearly establish a warrant requirement to … Qualified Immunity Finally, Narvilas, Jilnicki, Schirrippa, Glogg, and Grenci assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Hodge v. Jones

31 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 19, 1994

The court rejected Defendants' proffered qualified immunity defense on a determination that both the protected interest of familial privacy and the procedural safeguards ofSec. 5-715 were clearly established at the time of … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil monetary damages if their conduct did not violate the Hodges' clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Kevin Lipman v. Armond Budish

974 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 4, 2020

Even had Defendants adequately argued the qualified immunity point, the right that they infringed upon was clearly established at the time of their actions in this case. … And in Nelson, this Court directly addressed qualified immunity with respect to state-created danger, rejecting the officer’s claim to qualified immunity because Kallstrom clearly established that the state may not affirmatively

Kelley v. Troy State University

923 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1996

Thus, a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff demonstrates that the official’s actions violated a clearly established right. Sims v. … They correctly point out that, to lose qualified immunity, a government official must infringe a right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. Lassiter v.

Eyring v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center, Inc.

991 S.W.2d 230 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1999

Eyring argues the lower courts erred in applying the Peer Review Law to grant Parkwest qualified immunity from liability for damages because the plain language of the statute provides no explicit immunity to “hospitals, … Section -219(c)(1) grants qualified immunity to “institutions . . . and associated committees as identified in subsection (b).” Id.

Tribble v. Gardner

860 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 25, 1988

The defendants in that case moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … established rights. 9 Therefore, we hold that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the district court was correct in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity

El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia and Mark Mendoza v. Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, K. M., L. M., C. M., M. M., and L. M.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Brooks v. Northwood Little League, Inc.

327 S.C. 400 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jun 9, 1997

Some courts have focused on the nature of the land itself and have established prerequisites to immunity, namely that the land qualifying for protection is: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for the type of activities … The plain language of our recreational use statute’s provisions clearly protects the Respondents because it grants immunity to “landowners.” 7 S.C.Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 to 27-3-70; see also T.W.