Case law

Arce v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

211 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2012

Thus, Congress clearly intended to authorize immunity for reporters in order to encourage more extensive reporting. … Under section 1983, government officials are generally entitled to “qualified immunity,” which “shields [them] from liability for civil damages if (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and

Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc.

800 F.2d 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 2, 1986

violation of clearly established law.” … If properly supported, such an allegation could make out a violation of clearly established law and might defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

Brian Barlow v. Officer George Ground, I.D. 9129

943 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 5, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply if reasonable officers would have known they were violating clearly established Constitutional rights. See White v. Pierce County, 797 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir.1986). … It must decide “[wjhether a reasonable official would know that she is violating that clearly established law.” Id.

William King v. Jason Chide and Mark Gonzales

974 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 13, 1992

Our first inquiry in the examination of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the Plaintiff has “alleg[ed] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v. … Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from liability if a reasonably competent law enforcement agent would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law. Jackson v.

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.

Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp.

26 F.3d 728 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 14, 1994

By now, it is well established that certain government officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suit. … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules.... Casteel v.

Anderson v. Recore

317 F.3d 194 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 15, 2003

The judge's qualified immunity determination followed from his conclusion that Sandin v. … Dist., 239 F.3d 246 , 250 (2d Cir.2001). 9 Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity "if either (a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

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.

Moon v. Rockdale County

188 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2016

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Cooper v. Martin

634 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

The defendants bear the burden of establishing the relevant facts supporting qualified immunity, while Cooper receives the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Wallingford v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from damage actions if their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Morris v.

Langworthy v. Dean

37 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 8, 1999

As there is not a clearly established constitutional right to have claims of criminal activity by a private actor investigated, the doctrine of qualified immunity will bar these claims. 4 Plaintiff argues that his fight to … As the treaties do not provide the Plaintiff with a clearly established right to have his claims investigated and prosecuted, all of the Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity. 6 V As mentioned previously

Baker v. Smiscik

49 F. Supp. 3d 489 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 24, 2014

Embody, 695 F.3d at 581 . *501 Plaintiff fails to meet the clearly-established-right prong for the qualified immunity analysis. … Neither of these sources provides a basis for finding a clearly established constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Barrett, 388 F.3d at 972.

Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty.

910 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 6, 2018

entitled to qualified immunity. … The district court held that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that Gorman's complaint constituted protected speech.

ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. State of Georgia

137 F. Supp. 2d 1349 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 2001

To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Defendants violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Santamorena v. … In Lassi-ter, the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about)

Knight Ex Rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade County

856 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2017

As this Court has often observed, “qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]o receive qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

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).

Richard Leo Deorle v. Greg Rutherford, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Mick Grey, Butte County Sheriff County of Butte

272 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 19, 2001

immunity: notwithstanding the absence of direct precedent, the law may be, as it was here, clearly established. … It does not matter that no case of this court directly addresses the use of such weapons; we have held that ‘[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every

Luis J. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc.

878 F.2d 1500 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 5, 1988

More importantly, in the determination of whether qualified immunity applies, the proper focus is on whether the plaintiff’s right to continued employment was clearly established, not on whether the job involves policy-making … A decision which denies qualified immunity necessarily establishes the merits of plaintiff’s claim. For this reason, the Secretary’s assertion is without merit. AFFIRMED.

Pinder v. Commissioners of Cambridge

821 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 1993

The lack of precise factors does not establish Defendants’ qualified immunity. … If an official subject to qualified immunity could claim that a right is not “clearly established” because the right contains limitations or has some uncertain areas of application, then an official would always be immune