Case law

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.

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.

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.

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

On appeal, Dwyer contends that he didn’t violate DeVooght’s clearly established First Amendment rights, so he should receive qualified immunity. … We have repeatedly held that a public employee’s right to engage in protected speech without retaliation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Buddenberg 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.

Ball v. Township of Silver Spring

833 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2011

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Courts conduct a two step analysis for a qualified immunity defense: whether law enforcement’s acts violated a constitutional right, and if they did, whether that right was clearly established at the time. Mierzwa v.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

Doe v. Terry

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

James E. Phillips, II v. WV DHHR d/b/a Mitchell Bateman Hospital

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

rights or laws that were clearly established and of which a reasonable person would have known or whether those actions were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … The circuit court applied established jurisprudence from this Court in finding that the DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity.

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Tittle v. Raines

231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002

Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.

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

Andersen v. McCotter

100 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

She also claims that the law was clearly established in this area, thereby precluding Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. We agree. … Because the law in this area was clearly established in March 1994, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED and REMANDED. - 15 -

Barts v. Joyner

865 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1989

qualified immunity because their conduct in March 1983 did not violate clearly established law. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional right); State v.

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

Horn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.

57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999

Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.