Case law

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

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

Felix E. Capoeman v. Amos Reed

754 F.2d 1512 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1985

Qualified Immunity Even defendants who violate constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages “unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the … Nonetheless, we found that the basic fourth amendment rights of students had been sufficiently clearly established at the time to prevent the defendants’ immunity. Id.

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.

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.

Brown v. Fogle

867 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

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.

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

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

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.

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Majdalani v. Auburn University (CONSENT)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 26, 2024

prong of qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity” by establishing that the Defendant violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation).

Carswell v. Borough of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Murphy, 274 F.3d ruling on qualified immunity. … facts material to the qualified immunity violation of excessive force.

Robert N. Wallin v. Silas Norman

317 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2003

For the most part, government employees are protected from civil suits, except to the extent that their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The issue of whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings has clearly not been decided, because the district court did not address the merits of the motion.

Moxley v. Town of Walkersville

601 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 6, 2009

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Nonetheless, “qualified immunity ... will be upheld on a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint,” Hafley v.

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School District

247 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Fankell , 520 U.S. 911, 915 (1997) (“[A] Federal District Court order rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the ground that the defendant’s actions—if proved—would have violated clearly established law may be appealed … Defendant Shackett also claimed that even if such a right existed it was not clearly established at the time of the events underlying this suit, thus entitling him to qualified immunity.

Singleton v. Cannizzaro

372 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 28, 2019

"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 *411 conduct." 71 " … immunity from such claims because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if it did, the Defendants did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Murphy v. Goss

103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2015

Standards for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983 Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … “whether federal rights asserted by a plaintiff were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir.2003). George 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.