Case law

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

Stanley v. Cooper

996 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1998

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … But such actions did not so clearly violate Stanley’s rights that defendant Cooper should be deprived of the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Irvin Morales v. CO John Doe #2, Jon Fouts, Roderick Greenwood, and Keith Forcier

2020 DNH 046 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 24, 2020

Qualified Immunity “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 … “‘[C]learly established law’ should not be defined ‘at a high level of generality.’ . . . [T]he clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace

678 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2012

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which … We exercise our discretion to consider prong one of the qualified immunity analysis first.

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

Vincent v. Sitnewski

117 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2015

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … And it *343 would undermine the key virtue of qualified immunity doctrine — that if nothing else, the “clearly established” test is objective.

Sharkany v. Bryce

District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officer Bryce is also entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the Plaintiff’s claims. … did not violate a clearly established right.

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.

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

Bedsole v. Clark

33 So. 3d 9 · Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · Sep 18, 2009

‘“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … When a government official seeks summary judgment based on qualified immunity, courts apply a two-step test to determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate.

Greene v. Barrett

174 F.3d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 1999

The qualified immunity doctrine “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.

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