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

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.

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

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.

Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC

552 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 16, 2018

We quote Panda's live petition at length because it clearly identifies Panda's position. … itself enjoys"; and (4) "the policies underlying official and qualified immunity are simply irrelevant to that contention."

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

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.

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

Nieves v. County of Monroe

761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information

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.

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 -

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.

Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department

232 Cal. App. 4th 995 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2014

” (Hafer, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 29)) or “qualified immunity.” … Haugen (2004) 543 U.S. 194, 198–201 [160 L.Ed.2d 583, 125 S.Ct. 596] [officer who shot fleeing felon entitled to qualified immunity]; Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 203–209 [arresting officer entitled to qualified immunity

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

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.