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.

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.”

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Adkins could not set forth a claim showing a clearly established right to be free of sexual harassment in a prison setting. Upon this basis, the court granted defendant qualified immunity from suit. In this appeal, Ms. … Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993).

Winburn v. Bologna

979 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 1997

the qualified immunity question.” … Since Defendants did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

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.

State v. Andrews

424 S.C. 304 · Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Jul 18, 2018

On appeal, Andrews argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying him immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act 1 **308 (the Act) due to inconsistent witness testimony, (2) refusing to qualify Investigator … He stated shootings typically caused "memory fragmentation[, a]nd after a couple of sleep cycles[,] you're able to consolidate your memories" and remember the event more clearly.

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.

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

Wood v. MCC Superintendant

89 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

B Plaintiffs can overcome the defendant's assertion of the qualified immunity defense only by showing that Clemons' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … is entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Stone v. Olderbak Georgetown/Willows LLC

District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 1, 2024

The Order Is Not Clearly Erroneous Part of Defendant’s first objection and Defendant’s third objection assert that the Order is clearly erroneous. … Dillard’s, Inc., 643 F.3d 607, 613 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the possibility of a different result does not establish that the result is clearly erroneous).

Leona Mullins v. Oscar Cyranek

805 F.3d 760 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2015

Cyranek moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. … Police officers are immune from civil liability unless, in the course of performing their discretionary functions, they violate the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Messerschmidt v.

Prisco v. United States, Department of Justice

851 F.2d 93 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 1988

established law. … In exploring whether a right is clearly established, we must find “some but not precise correspondence” with applicable precedents. People of Three Mile Island v.

Sterling Hotels, LLC v. Scott McKay

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2023

To overcome McKay’s assertion of qualified immunity at this stage, Sterling need only plausibly allege that McKay violated its clearly established constitutional rights. … McKay’s potential individual liability for a regulatory takings claim was not clearly established when he sealed the elevators. That means McKay is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.