Case law

Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles

891 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity under Federal Law Qualified immunity under federal law protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.” Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994).

Redwood v. Lierman

Appellate Court of Illinois · Jun 7, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that under the facts in the amended complaint, they are entitled to a qualified immunity from liability because the applicable legal standards were not clearly established at the time they … The majority's rule requiring a warrant is not only not clearly established, it is not the law. Qualified immunity applies.

Anderson v. Board of Regents

822 F. Supp. 2d 1342 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their personal capacities unless their conduct “ ‘violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … In addition, in order to avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiff must show that the property or liberty interest was well established and that the process he received was clearly inadequate.

Jerry Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Board

836 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

Qualified Immunity B. Qualified Immunity Thigpen advances the alternate proposition that even under a qualified immunity theory, he cannot be liable for damages in this case. … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue involves whether or not the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Weg v. MacChiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages.... As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable." … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent "clearly established" caselaw to the contrary.

Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.

473 Utah Adv. Rep. 50 · Utah Supreme Court · May 13, 2003

For the Randalls to benefit from this prior decision granting immunity to DHS, they must clearly establish a relationship with DHS that legally qualifies them to receive the same treatment. 126 The Randalls argue that they … by the Randalls do not, however, clearly establish that they were employees of DHS rather than independent contractors.

Smith v. Upson County, Ga.

859 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Aug 8, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14. A.

R. H. v. ED WAGNER

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 11, 2022

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,4 that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. … ’ and ‘qualified immunity’ are used interchangeably in Georgia case law to refer to the type of immunity that sometimes shields government employees from individual liability[.]”

Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, Gene McClaran

240 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

’s qualified immunity analysis. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

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.

Lisa Price v. Montgomery County

72 F.4th 711 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

To overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of … Miller has neither proven that violating a court order constitutes a constitutional violation, nor that such a violation is clearly established. As a result, Craycraft is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bell v. City of Los Angeles

835 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2011

establish constitutional precedent on questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable; and when few judicial resources would be conserved by considering only the “clearly … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v.

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 -

Ervin v. James

874 S.W.2d 713 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 10, 1994

Cronen seemed to dismiss, out-of-hand, the idea of proving qualified immunity by summary judgment proof. We believe that such an approach would render the qualified immunity defense illusory. … We conclude that Ervin and Lilley established their right to summary judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of qualified official immunity.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

Toni Duncan v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Because Herron did not violate Duncan’s right to equal protection, this court needs not address the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established that Herron’s conduct violated Duncan

Foley v. Town of Lee

871 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 9, 2012

“The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) such right was clearly established at the time of the defendants … “A right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.