Case law

Henderson Duval Houghton v. Carroll v. South

965 F.2d 1532 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 11, 1992

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … South moved for summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense.

Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

655 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 26, 2011

right was clearly established.” … When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Hardy v.

Hodge v. Jones

31 F.3d 157 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 19, 1994

The court rejected Defendants' proffered qualified immunity defense on a determination that both the protected interest of familial privacy and the procedural safeguards ofSec. 5-715 were clearly established at the time of … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil monetary damages if their conduct did not violate the Hodges' clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital

474 F.3d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 9, 2007

Nevertheless, the officers contend the district court erred in denying their post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because no clearly established law precluded the test. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Richard Wesley v. Alison Campbell

779 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 2, 2015

If the arrest was supported by probable cause, then Rigney would be entitled to qualified immunity. If not, then qualified immunity was inappropriate and both decisions must be reversed. … Hence, qualified immunity was inappropriate, because it is clearly established that “[p]olice officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause when that determination was premised on an officer

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Bombace v. City of Newark

125 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 1991

other antecedent or surrounding conduct might constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity. … In construing the Act, this Court has respected that legislative policy to establish immunity as the general rule. E.g., Rochinsky v. State, 110 N.J. 399, 407-08 , 541 A. 2d 1029 (1988).

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “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 conduct.”

Kelley v. Troy State University

923 F. Supp. 1494 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1996

Thus, a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff demonstrates that the official’s actions violated a clearly established right. Sims v. … They correctly point out that, to lose qualified immunity, a government official must infringe a right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. Lassiter v.

Houston v. Tucker

137 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2000

the defendant violated clearly established law. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that: (1) the defendant violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Feldman v. Hoffman

107 A.3d 821 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 2014

Hoffman’s duties. 6 The trial court further found that the Letter “was not addressed solely to [Feldman] but to a number of people, and [Feldman] did not clearly establish that [Decedent’s] original note was her property … Hoffman qualifies as a high-ranking public official and it was alleged that he was acting within the scope of his duties, he qualifies for high official immunity. II.

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.

Hicks v. City of Watonga

942 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review the denial of a qualified immunity claim de novo. McEvoy, 882 F.2d at 465 . … The appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the property interest claim unless they violated Mr. Hicks’ clearly established right. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

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.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent.” … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

Barry Wion v. Janie Cockrell, Ann Byrom, J. Missildine, A.R. Massingil, and Kelli Ward

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity Wion contends that the trial court erred when it found he failed to state material facts that would overcome the TDCJ employees’ qualified immunity defense. … legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.

Aupperlee v. Coughlin

97 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 31, 2000

Layne, 526 U.S. 603 , 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1697 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (quotation omitted). “ ‘Clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Brown v. City of Milwaukee

288 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Garcia violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 statutory

Carr v. Tatangelo

156 F. Supp. 2d 1369 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 2001

If there was no underlying constitutional violation, then Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether the law was clearly established. See Hartley v. … Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because they were unaware that Carr had been shot and because Carr has not shown that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Department

839 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 29, 1993

raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law. … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to this use of the taser as well because its use did not violate clearly established law.