Case law

Houck v. City of Prairie Village

942 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 1996

was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” … Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

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.

Tachiquin v. Stowell

789 F. Supp. 1512 · District Court, E.D. California · May 4, 1992

If the plaintiff fails to state with specificity a “claim of a violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … not, was the absence of probable cause so clear as to constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) under the law as it existed at the time?

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

Johnson v. Utah Department of Transportation

547 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 · Utah Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2006

However, discretionary immunity clearly was not designed to cloak the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity in modern garb.”). … Rather, we reaffirm prior case law that such studies substantially help the government establish that immunity is warranted under the discretionary function exception.

Penlyn Development Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor

51 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 16, 1999

Qualified Immunity The defendant also moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … 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

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

Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County

798 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 4, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court reiterated: “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, however, so it may only be asserted in a 12(b)(6) motion when the “complaint itself establishes ... qualified immunity.” Green v.

Nancy Roell v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs

870 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2017

“In order for a right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … We, on the other hand, have utilized the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis to conclude that the deputies are entitled to summary judgment because no caselaw clearly established that the degree of force used

James Gladden, Jr. v. Kenneth Richbourg

759 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2014

Thus, Gladden can prevail against the officers only if they violated his clearly established constitutional rights. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … If, based on those facts, the officer reasonably failed to comprehend that he was violating a person’s clearly established constitutional rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id.

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.

Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, Roland Neil Meyers, and City of Wichita, Scott Redpath, Special Agent, Marilyn Mick Crissy Cochran Lauren Ashley Mick, by and Through Her Father and Next Friend Ken Mick, and Ken Mick v. Major Kim T. Brewer, City of Wichita, Roland Neil Meyers, and Scott Redpath, Special Agent

76 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 20, 1996

If the district court denies the defendant qualified immunity, the court should identify on the record the defendant's conduct that violated clearly established law. Albright, 51 F.3d at 1535 . … Compare Elder, 114 S.Ct. at 1021 ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.") with Graham, 490 U.S. at

Fore v. Circuit Court of Izard County

292 Ark. 13 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 20, 1987

undisputed and the writ is clearly warranted. … Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 , 725 S.W.2d 839 (1987), that the defense of qualified immunity presents an exception to this rule. The present defense is based upon a claim of statutory immunity.

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.

Nathan Rice v. Reliastar Life Insurance Co.

770 F.3d 1122 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 27, 2014

Qualified immunity is a two-prong analysis. … The Supreme Court has explained that the clearly established standard incorporates an objective reasonableness inquiry: To be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right

Bowman v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

857 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 20, 1994

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A plaintiff who seeks damages ... may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those [constitutional or statutory] rights were clearly established.” Elder v.

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

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.”

Minigan v. Irvin

977 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

Qualified Immunity. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Elba Estrada-Adorno v. Jose R. Gonzalez, Etc.

861 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

He is immune unless, at the time he took action, the right at issue was clearly established. Anderson v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (state official is immune from damages liability unless his action violates a right that was “clearly established” at the time the action