Case law

Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Dayton

134 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 6, 1998

The district court denied summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue, finding that Gabringer was not entitled to qualified immunity because: (1) the affidavit filed by Gabringer in application for the search warrant … To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, the plaintiff must: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer

Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff, Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff

77 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Carver and Rogers then returned Erickson to the jail. 5 On appeal, Johnle, Birdsall, and Carver assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Erickson's clearly established constitutional rights … immunity.

Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig

764 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 28, 1991

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established … As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

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.

Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

299 Ga. 301 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jul 5, 2016

(d) Special Privileges and Immunities: Pursuant to Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, § I, Par. … Jacobi was not qualified under the statute. This leaves only the two affidavits filed by Dr.

kenney v. davidson

Vermont Superior Court · Feb 29, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … Thus they are not entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss.

Davdrin Goffin v. Robbie Ashcraft

957 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

Officer Ashcraft is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Moffitt v. Town Of Brookfield

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

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … More precisely, furthermore, it had been clearly established that a contract may vest a right or interest that requires due process protection, see Board of Regents v.

Tveraas v. Coffey

818 F. Supp. 75 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 5, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity provides immunity from civil suits to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … To establish entitlement to such protection, a defendant must show that he has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Neague ex rel. Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir.1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

Jackson v. City of Bremerton

268 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 2001

The defense of qualified immunity, however, protects § 1983 defendants from liability for civil damages when performing discretionary functions, unless such conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory … In considering the merits of a qualified immunity defense in excessive force cases, courts previously considered whether the right was clearly established and, if so, whether, in light of such clearly established law, a reasonable

Ward v. Noonan

147 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2015

“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.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune from suit for damages where their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Dean v. Thomas

933 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 1, 1996

However, this “qualified immunity” is defeated if the defendant official took the complained-of action “with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights,” or the official violated clearly established statutory … Officials are not ordinarily entitled to the protection of qualified immunity if clearly established constitutional rights have been violated.

Natasha Whitley v. John Hanna

726 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 8, 2013

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability when their actions could reasonably have been believed to be legal.” Morgan v. … Therefore, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Gennusa v. Shoar

879 F. Supp. 2d 1337 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 2012

Defendants further assert that, even if the recording violated plaintiffs’ rights, qualified immunity applies because those rights were not clearly established. … Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their actions violated plaintiffs’ clearly established rights.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have

Adkins v. Rodriguez

59 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 6, 1995

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, defendant then places the onus on the plaintiff to establish defendant has violated a clearly established law. Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1066 (10th Cir.1993). … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset, we have stated, "[t]he question of qualified immunity therefore dovetails almost precisely with

Bernstein v. Lopez

321 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

We hold that no further facts need to be determined and that as a matter of law the defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the plaintiffs have no clearly established right to continue in their administrative … This property interest, they maintain, was “clearly established.”

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Eastland County, and the City of Gorman v. Elnor Maxine Poyner, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William Euell Poyner, and as Sole Heir of William Euell Poyner

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 25, 2001

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Rucker v. Marshall

119 F.4th 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 14, 2024

To deny qualified immunity, a district court must find “that the alleged conduct amounts to a constitutional violation” and that “the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.” Buehler v. … To establish excessive force, a plaintiff must show “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable.” Byrd v.