Case law

Essalene Lambert v. City of Dumas

187 F.3d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 1999

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which the reasonable person would have known.” Yowell v. … The Appellee alleges the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Brown v. Armenti

247 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2001

immunity, "the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … "clearly established." 31 Behrens v.

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Vance v. Barrett

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

Harvey A. Thompson v. City of Starkville, Mississippi, David Lindley, Larry Sisk, and Jimmy Raines, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

901 F.2d 456 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 1990

Forsyth, it has been established that an appeal may be taken of a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly … Perez, 751 F.2d 1472 , 1477 n. 13 (5th Cir.1985) (“Under the qualified immunity standard, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

HILL v. JACKSON Et Al.

336 Ga. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2016

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. Jobling, supra at 488 (2) (a). … Moreover, the contract itself clearly establishes the duties of CMA and its employees.

Creech v. Eckerd Corp.

56 Va. Cir. 407 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Sep 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Recently in Saucier v. Katz, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of qualified immunity. No. 991977 (June 18,2001). … If the right was not clearly established or it would not be clear to a reasonable officer, in the same situation, that his conduct was unlawful, a court is entitled to grant summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

David W. Landrum v. Al Gomez

37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 1994

II 5 When qualified immunity applies, the shield from section 1983 liability for damages will be lifted only if the party's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Landrum had a clearly established constitutional right to marry, see Turner v.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have a clearly established right to be free from patronage dismissals.

Perkins v. Click

148 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2001

Alternatively, Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating their actions violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights. … has long been clearly established.

State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen

Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his … they are clearly erroneous.31 A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”32 III.

Watson v. City of Kansas City

185 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 21, 2001

. • Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Idoux v. Lamar University System

828 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 13, 1993

Qualified Immunity The question of whether qualified immunity will protect an official is one of law for the Court to decide. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … To be entitled to qualified immunity, a governmental official must have been performing discretionary functions, and his conduct must not have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Walker v. Tyler County Commission

886 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 22, 1995

An executive official is entitled to qualified immunity where an objective observer could find that the officer reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See e.g. … any clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University

822 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

The Rutgers officials concede that were it clearly established that Rutgers’ regulations provide for de facto tenure by length of service, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity because Perry and Roth established … The court found that Varma’s claim implicated this clearly established law and, for that reason, denied Rutgers’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Lopez Lopez v. Aran

699 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 14, 1988

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity. … For reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs a verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. *366 The doctrine of qualified immunity applies to government officials performing