Case law

Johnson v. Johnson

385 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 8, 2004

Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient. … If Johnson has indeed failed to allege a violation, then of course there can be no violation of clearly established law that would overcome qualified immunity. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 .

Scocca v. Smith

912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor

723 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

jurisdiction only over qualified immunity appeal) … Martz and Taylor asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their Answer to Hernandez-Cuevas's complaint and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Hernandez-Cuevas's

Jaggers v. Zolliecoffer

290 Ark. 250 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Nov 3, 1986

was not entitled to a qualified immunity. … Forsyth, supra, it is clearly stated that the qualified immunity of federal officials is an immunity from suit, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Id. 58 Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton's right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Shaboon v. Duncan

252 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Further, these violations might be found to be so “clearly established” as to overcome Duncan’s qualified immunity defense.

Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Solis-Alarcon v. United States

432 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory authority or con *246 stitutional … understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue.

Trammell v. Wright

489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

Davis v. Carroll

390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Dawn Green v. City of Southfield, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 26, 2018

To avoid the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff is required to plead facts demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right that is clearly established in a “particularized sense.” Johnson v. … Because the constitutional right to be free of discrimination because of race and/or sex and police “cover-ups” was clearly established, Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Bakos v. Roach

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

Clemmons v. Armontrout

477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity 10 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. … To determine whether a right is "clearly established," we ask "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."

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.

Whelehan v. County of Monroe

558 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 22, 1983

only to the qualified good-faith immunity asserted by the respondent in that case. … Therefore the risk of removal, even if made explicit by the examining officers, cannot be regarded as coercive because it existed as an ordinary and clearly apparent consequence of James’s failure to establish his innocence

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.

Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.

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