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.

Abila v. Funk

220 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 23, 2016

*1170 established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Christopher MACKINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Garon NIELSEN, Dash Butler, Al Littles, and City of Berkeley, Defendants-Appellees

69 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity turns on a two part inquiry: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … Ninth Circuit law also clearly establishes the right verbally to challenge the police. In Duran v.

Conroy v. Caron

275 F. Supp. 3d 328 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 8, 2017

That is because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Moreover, their entry into the garages under these . assumed circumstances violated clearly established law, such that they are- not entitled at this time to the protection of qualified immunity. 5 *344 2.

Rincover v. State, Department of Finance, Securities Bureau

128 Idaho 653 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1996

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that although qualified immunity is the general rule for executive officials charged with constitutional violations, absolute immunity applies to those officials performing … Because we conclude that Klein and Patty are entitled to absolute immunity, we will not consider whether the standards for the doctrine of qualified immunity have been met and will, rather, affirm the district court’s decision

Hoyland v. McMenomy

185 F. Supp. 3d 1111 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 5, 2016

Qualified immunity protects government officers from § 1983 liability “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Hoy-land’s First Amendment right was not clearly established.

Carolyn Arnett v. Larry Norris

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 3, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials and officers from § 1983 claims when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) the presented facts “make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and (2) “that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant[s’] alleged

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.

Pfeil v. Lampert

11 F. Supp. 3d 1099 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 31, 2014

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. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), we held that courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not “clearly established” by prior case law, without resolving

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.

Cameron v. Montgomery County Child Welfare Service

471 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1979

The defendants’ motion is based on judicial or quasi-judicial immunity and a qualified good faith immunity. As the Supreme Court held in Pierson v. … in support thereof (or the lack of that authority), whether a claim has been stated by *767 a specific count, and whether a specific right was or was not clearly established.

Buller v. Buechler

706 F.2d 844 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 5, 1983

The Court then articulated its qualified immunity test: a good faith defense will be defeated if the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which he or she knew or should have … defense or qualified immunity.

Bator v. Hawaii

39 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1994

Qualified immunity protects state officials from section 1983 liability if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The defendants argue, however, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right to be free of sexual harassment was not clearly established during the period of Bator’s employment.

Kwai Fun Wong v. United States

373 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 25, 2004

No doubt we do over the qualified immunity issue. … Whether the Law Was Clearly Established 108 Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, whether an official asserting qualified immunity may be held liable "generally turns on the `objective legal reasonableness'

Fred Arispe Cruz, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. George Beto and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

603 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 5, 1979

Although at the time of this trial the qualified immunity defense had not yet been established in such cases, it is now settled that Beto’s exposure to liability for damages under section 1983 is limited by the qualified … Under the first part, persons clothed with this qualified shield lose its protection if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or

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

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.

Sanders v. Nunley

634 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 25, 1985

Qualified or “good faith” immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, Nunley has asserted and established his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield

950 F.2d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1991

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that: government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”