Case law

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

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.

Fares v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

29 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 1998

Qualified Immunity Individual Defendants argue that, at the very least, they are all shielded from Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

Green v. Security Assurance Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity “means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful

Terrell v. Harris County

115 F.4th 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 2024

The district court granted qualified immunity to the deputy who was not accused of sexual assault. On appeal, Terrell fails to establish that the deputy violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In sum, Terrell failed to show a clearly established violation of her rights. The district court correctly granted qualified immunity to Cannon. b.

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.”

Huey B. Wright v. Harold Smith and Thomas A. Coughlin, III

21 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 6, 1994

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from liability where they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Russell II, 15 F.3d at 233 (official protected by qualified immunity where no Supreme Court or Second Circuit cases clearly establish procedures required to make independent assessment of witness’s credibility). 3 D.

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.

Grisham v. Valenciano

93 F.4th 903 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2024

However, “[a] qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof” because, to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs “must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine [dispute of material fact] … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because neither Everard nor Grisham can point to any clearly established law that such force was unreasonably excessive under the circumstances.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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."

Walker ex rel. T.W. v. City of New York

63 F. Supp. 3d 301 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2014

Defendants Robinson and White Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity 1) Caseworker Qualified Immunity “Immunity ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … Individual government actors performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity if: “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Kevin Lamar Adams Bobbie Adams v. City of Auburn Hills, a Municipal Corporation, John Backstrom

336 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity As the Supreme Court explained in Harlow v. … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: “(1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff could establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether the right was a ‘clearly established

Debbie Floyd v. Larry Laws, and City of Sherwood, a Municipal Corporation

929 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 30, 1991

Because these rights are clearly established, Floyd contends, defendant Laws was not entitled to a jury instruction on qualified immunity. … If Floyd’s line of reasoning were correct, then any plaintiff could preclude her opponent’s qualified immunity defense simply by alleging violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Penate v. Sullivan

73 F.4th 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

In the alternative, the district court found that Detective Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established that officers were required to either knock and announce in this situation … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages "unless their conduct violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Lawless v.

John Flowers v. City of Diboll Texas, Steve Baker and Kent Havard

Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler) · May 22, 2013

Governmental employees are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages ―insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer if a reasonable officer could have believed that the action taken was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. See Hunter v.