Case law

Citizens for Uniform Taxation v. Northport Public School District

239 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Section 1211 treats nonresidents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property exactly the same as Michigan residents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property, neither are eligible for the

Lucero v. Bush

737 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, D. South Dakota · Sep 1, 2010

Evaluating qualified immunity is an objective test: defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants’ qualified immunity defense must fail since reasonable police officers should or would have known the constitutional principles governing their conduct were clearly established and prohibited such action.

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established.”

White v. Gerardot

509 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2007

It is well established, of course, that a denial of qualified immunity is only appealable “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 . … Detective Gerardot claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate Ford’s constitutional rights and, in any event, those rights were not clearly established at the time of

Eastwood v. Department Of Corrections Of The State Of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff's clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Margarito Salmon, Magdalena Salmon, Individually and as Next Friend for Margarito Salmon, Jr. v. Martin R. Schwarz and Arturo A. Gonzalez

948 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 1991

In Morfin , a qualified immunity case, the court was asked to decide for the first time whether the plaintiffs, teachers, had a clearly established right in 1985 to associate with a labor union other than their exclusive … deciding whether or not a right was clearly established.”

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.

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.

Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections

202 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2016

Mar. 27, 2006) (finding defendant who “clearly failed to request special interrogatories even after he had been invited to do so” by the Court waived qualified immunity defense). … It is true that “qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their duties if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams

451 F.3d 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2006

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … There is no question that the second step – clearly established – is satisfied, as it is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thornton v.

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Crandel v. Hastings

75 F.4th 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Again, when defendants assert qualified immunity, “a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

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.

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.

Hiller v. Ramsey

District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 3, 2020

The court further concluded that the officer’s use of excessive force violated clearly established law, so the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Hiller met his burden to show that Ramsey’s conduct violated clearly established law, Ramsey is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Hiller’s claim.

Adewale v. Whalen

21 F. Supp. 2d 1006 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 7, 1998

A government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate “clearly established” constitutional or statutory rights of “which a reasonable person would have … cause is the clearly established standard for making an arrest.

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 .

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.

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

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