Case law

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”).

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.

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

HILL v. JACKSON Et Al.

336 Ga. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2016

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. Jobling, supra at 488 (2) (a). … Moreover, the contract itself clearly establishes the duties of CMA and its employees.

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.

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."

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

Watson v. City of Kansas City

185 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 21, 2001

. • Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

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.

Walker v. Tyler County Commission

886 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 22, 1995

An executive official is entitled to qualified immunity where an objective observer could find that the officer reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See e.g. … any clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Kovats v. Rutgers, The State University

822 F.2d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 30, 1987

The Rutgers officials concede that were it clearly established that Rutgers’ regulations provide for de facto tenure by length of service, they would not be entitled to qualified immunity because Perry and Roth established … The court found that Varma’s claim implicated this clearly established law and, for that reason, denied Rutgers’ motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.

Kenneth E. Hardy v. Jefferson Community College and Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Mary Pamela Besser and Richard Green

260 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2001

Green and Besser then filed a motion to alter or amend the district court’s ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity, asserting that “the right to free speech in the classroom setting is not clearly established … Standard of review The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability, as well as from suit, so long as their official conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Casines v. Murchek

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines’s right to a pre-termi-nation hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

Harvey v. Montgomery County

881 F. Supp. 2d 785 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 30, 2012

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Deputies’ actions were simply not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Therefore, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs deliberate indifference to medical care claim.

Timothy Beers v. Jon Fouts et al.

2018 DNH 144 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 10, 2018

In granting defendant Forcier’s motion to dismiss and the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, this court determined that the law was not clearly established in December … Qualified Immunity Further, this court previously concluded that defendants are shielded by qualified immunity from plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the group strip search.

Tiramani v. Johnson

307 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 8, 2018

I agree that the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. … There was no "clearly established" law prohibiting warrantless entry in similar circumstances in the absence of a sign of a break-in.

Sloman v. Tadlock

21 F.3d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 14, 1994

Government officials such as police officers are not absolutely immune from suit, but rather only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The determination of qualified immunity necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right- was so “clearly established” as to alert

Vaughn v. Ricketts

663 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 29, 1987

In Ward , the court rejected the defendant’s qualified immunity defense and held that a 1981 visual body cavity search of a misdemeanor arrestee conducted in the absence of a reasonable grounds was a violation of clearly … The burden of overcoming an official’s qualified immunity by demonstrating the existence of a clearly established right rests with the plaintiff. Davis v.

Carroll v. Henry County, Ga.

336 B.R. 578 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 23, 2006

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.