Case law

Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del.

749 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 1990

In reviewing a qualified immunity claim, the District Court must determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and of the information the … The constitutional infirmity of such police conduct thus was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest in this case.

Johnson v. Perry

140 F. Supp. 3d 222 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 21, 2015

clearly established at the time of the defendants’ acts in question.” … The qualified immunity analysis involves relating the legal standard of conduct to the facts established by the evidence in the case at hand.

Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions

132 So. 3d 786 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 27, 2014

We also conclude that the ballot title and summary comply with section 101.161(1) because they are not clearly and conclusively defective. … This limited immunity is necessary because, in the absence of such immunity, the mere act of prescribing marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, would result in civil or criminal liability or sanctions, which

Pyne v. Meese

172 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Under the Harlow test, Black and Hurd did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and are thus immune from liability. … Once again, we must apply the Harlow test to determine whether a qualified immunity exists.

Jordan v. Berman

792 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1992

whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time of the alleged violation were sufficiently clear in light of … The court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that by 1982, and thus ipso facto by 1989, it was clearly established, particularly in view of North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v.

Barnette v. Folmar

64 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 1995

The district court denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity to all defendants on plaintiffs' constructive discharge claim and granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity to all the … No case binding in this circuit clearly established as a legal matter that plaintiffs' resignations were, in these circumstances, discharges.

James Covington v. Veronica Paris

2021 DNH 005 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 7, 2021

In addition, Paris may be entitled to qualified immunity. … If Paris invokes qualified immunity from Covington’s claim that her actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights, to overcome the immunity, Covington must show that his Eighth Amendment right was clearly established during

Angle v. Dow

822 F. Supp. 1530 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 1, 1993

anal *1538 ysis public officials will be entitled to qualified immunity in two situations: 1) when the law that they allegedly violated is not clearly established; and 2) when the law is clearly established and the Court … Therefore, the Court will examine the clearly established law, the second step of qualified immunity analysis. Defendants rely entirely on Dartland v.

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Thus, 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, 555 U.S. at 243–44. … But even putting aside the different facts that case presented, a decision of a district court cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Keeble v. Cisneros

664 F. Supp. 1076 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 15, 1987

Against this statutory and factual background, the various individual Defendants claim absolute and qualified immunity. … A qualified immunity protects a public official from liability unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Altony Brooks v. Captain Jacumin

924 F.3d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 10, 2019

In the alternative, the officers invoked qualified immunity: Even if Brooks’s Eighth Amendment rights had been violated by the malicious use of force, they contended, the law was not so clearly established that they would … immunity grounds because the law did not clearly establish that violation.

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.

Pace v. City of Palmetto

489 F. Supp. 2d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 12, 2007

In this Circuit, the law may be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only by opinions from the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, or the highest court of the state in whose … Therefore, based on the particular *1336 factual circumstances in which Ahler acted and the lack of “clearly established” case law, this Court concludes that Ahler is entitled to qualified immunity on Pace’s § 1983 claim.

Craighead v. Lee

399 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

Paul moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the Section 1983 claims and based on official immunity as to the state-law claims. … Wilson held that summary judgment on qualified immunity was inappropriate because "[t]he current record does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of the officers' actions or beliefs." Wilson, 293 F.3d at 454.

Baar v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

666 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 27, 2009

In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law. … Because Plaintiff's right to attend the LACA meetings was not clearly established at the time of Jury's reprimand, all of the individual defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim. V.

Glenn W. Phelps, Jr. v. Robert M. Coy, Jr., Christin Stutes

286 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Coy’s qualified immunity motion. … A claim of qualified immunity presents two closely linked questions: whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs rights and whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Walton v. NM State Land Office

821 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

Powell submits that his actions weren’t clearly forbidden by existing law at the time he took them so he’s entitled to qualified immunity. … Powell rightly notes that, to avoid a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show not only that her federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated but also that they were so “clearly established” at the

Anastasio v. WEST ORANGE TP. PLAN. BD.

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory, Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court 2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers violated clearly established federal law. … official's conduct did not violate clearly established law."

Arakawa v. Sakata

133 F. Supp. 2d 1223 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Mar 6, 2001

, either absolute quasi-judicial immunity, statutory immunity, or qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects state and local officials from suit as long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”