Case law

Moreta-Ramirez v. Lemert

156 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity in support of their motion to dismiss. The defense of qualified immunity is available to federal officials acting in the scope of their employment. … Interpreting Harlow , the First Circuit has established a three-part inquiry to determine whether or not the doctrine of qualified immunity applies in a given situation.

J.R. v. Gloria

593 F.3d 73 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

They asserted, among other grounds, a qualified immunity defense to the § 1983 claim and immunity to the state law negligence claims based on Rhode Island's state sovereign immunity and state qualified immunity law. … We need not address whether any such "right" would have been clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, Saucier v.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

O'Neil v. Texas Deparment of Criminal Justice

804 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 7, 2011

A defense of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof ... … Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.

Orange v. County of Grundy

950 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 12, 1996

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken. … that their conduct violated any of plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights.

Clarence Jason v. James LeBlanc

938 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted Secretary LeBlanc qualified immunity. But it denied qualified immunity to Ladner, Pierce, and Tanner. … Plaintiffs can go to trial if they show that the official violated their clearly established right. 11 In other words, it’s a two-prong test— (1) whether the official violated a right; and (2) whether that right was clearly

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Ngong Garang v. City of Ames

2 F.4th 1115 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 2021

claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and second, “whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” … In conducting this analysis, we “may review the legal issues whether conduct violated the Fourth Amendment or clearly established law,” but “cannot review whether a factual dispute is genuine.” Sok Kong v.

Moodian v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency

206 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2002

Alternatively, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the removal and therefore Black is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if “(1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and (2) under that law, the official objectively could have believed that her conduct was lawful

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11

678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004

Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.

Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi

272 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Virgili challenges the district court’s ruling that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because her Fourth Amendment right against a strip-search was not “clearly established” at the time of search. We AFFIRM. … The district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Virg-ili’s right against the search .was not “clearly established” at

Copper v. City of Fargo

905 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Dec 30, 1994

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when the plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of

Beck v. Wilson

377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Terry L. Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler

829 F.2d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 25, 1987

on the basis of qualified immunity. … When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not “clearly established” that his actions would violate the plaintiffs constitutional

Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann

810 F.3d 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 15, 2016

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have … Feltmann is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Essence Welch v. Daniel Dempsey

51 F.4th 809 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 20, 2022

In a footnote, the court noted that Dempsey’s motion made “a passing reference that ‘at minimum’ he is entitled to qualified immunity,” and concluded that the law was clearly established that retaliation for protected speech … In an interlocutory appeal raising a defense of qualified immunity, this court has jurisdiction to address only an order deciding a purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by a plaintiff show a violation of clearly

Schulthies v. National Passenger Rr Corp.

650 F. Supp. 2d 994 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 17, 2009

The defense of 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 … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established such that it would be clear