Case law

State v. Melms

101 N.E.3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2018

Melms immunity from prosecution due to his confinement is contrary to the policy considerations underlying the immunity statute. {¶ 14} Melms asserts that he is a qualified individual as defined by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii … The newly established immunity from prosecution set out in R.C. 2925.11(B) is not a fundamental right." {¶ 20} According to the State, "the class distinction drawn by this law is based solely on whether an individual has

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 -

McMorrow v. Little

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that MeMorrow’s claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

Larry D. Jr. and Pamela Pyles v. Mason Co. Fair, Inc.

239 W. Va. 882 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2017

under the Act are legal determinations capable of and demanding resolution at this juncture of the litigation rather than at the appellate stage.15 Because the principles of governmental immunity clearly apply to the facts … Pack, 223 W.Va. 828, 831, 679 S.E.2d 660, 663 (2009) (affirming “need for early resolution of immunity rulings” and holding that summary judgment ruling predicated on qualified immunity is subject to immediate appeal under

Guirlaine O'Rourke v. Martin Trujillo

378 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2004

To be even potentially eligible for qualified immunity, the official has the burden of establishing that he was acting “within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Hartsfield v. … When qualified immunity is asserted in the context of a motion to dismiss, we look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.

John K. Maciver Institute for Public Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz

243 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 2017

Immunity Assuming plaintiffs could prove that defendants violated the SCA and lacked good faith in doing so, there is still the question of their right to absolute or qualified immunity. … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 1998) (framing qualified immunity issue regarding a claim for a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as “whether [defendant’s] actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Larsen v. State Employees' Retirement System

553 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2008

“Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burella v. … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

("Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident." … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not subjectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on the

Lilly v. Lewiston-Porter Central School District

853 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 20, 2011

qualified immunity did not apply. … Then we consider if the violated right was clearly established at the time of the conduct....

White v. Martin

26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Kathleen A. Walsh v. Cuyahoga County, and Terry Allan

424 F.3d 510 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 2005

Allan was not entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Walsh’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established by Cleveland Board of Education v. … Ill 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

Glover v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2023

In such situations, the only relevant immunity provision is section 2-202 of the Act, which provides qualified immunity to public employees for acts or omissions “in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such … Additionally, unlike section 4-102, the immunity afforded under section 2-202 is qualified rather than absolute; a police officer is entitled to immunity under the provision unless the officer’s conduct was “willful and

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

Baker v. Clover

177 Ariz. 37 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 25, 1993

Civil rights liability is, however, circumscribed by qualified immunity. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken____” Anderson v.

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kirksey

885 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 19, 1989

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless their actions violated clearly established law.” Garionis, 827 F.2d at 308 (citations omitted). … Ordinarily, a qualified immunity defense will fail if, as here, the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

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.

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."