Case law

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

539 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Defendants now appeal *1196 the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Hennessey. 5 II We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Melancon v. Ascension Parish

823 F. Supp. 401 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 10, 1993

If a constitutional violation is established, the Court must then determine whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. 5 The second prong of this test is clearly satisfied. … was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. 19 Therefore, the defendants would be prohibited from relying on the defense of qualified immunity.

Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central Institute

135 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 2001

to dismissal based on qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Jacob v. Township of West Bloomfield

531 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

This second prong of the qualified immunity test clearly weighs in Plaintiffs favor. … claim of qualified immunity.

Morrison-Tiffin v. Hampton

117 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1995

The individual defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. A. Equal Protection 1. … The test for qualified immunity was set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 73 L.

Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . . … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding

Meyer v. Woodward

617 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 9, 2008

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Woodward is not entitled to qualified immunity because of two clearly established rights. First, Plaintiff argues that he has a clearly established right to refuse medical treatment. … Defendants Woodward and Carter also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not of a “clearly established right.”

Julie Ann Hamstead v. Matthew Harvey, individually and as Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County, West Virgina, and the Jefferson County Commission, a corporate body

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2022

To overcome qualified immunity, a claimant must establish that the employee or official knowingly violated a clearly established law or acted maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively. … Thus, the analysis turns to whether the acts alleged by the plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity because the acts violated some clearly established right of which a reasonable public official would have known, or were

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Oct 21, 2005

In federal court, the county may be able to claim "qualified immunity." … Qualified immunity applies to the actions of individual officers and employees who undertook the performance of their governmental duties in good faith and whose actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional

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.

Greene v. Friend of the Court, Polk County

406 N.W.2d 433 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 15, 1987

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), serves, we believe, to abrogate any qualified immunity under the facts which plaintiff may be able to establish at trial. … We find that DHS is clearly an alter ego agency of the state of Iowa for purposes of sharing in its immunity. See Iowa Code § 25A.2(1).

Brockington v. Boykins

637 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 22, 2011

The court also denied Boykins’ motion to dismiss on the doctrine of qualified immunity in a one-sentence order that contained no reasoning. The denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appeal- able order. … "Qualified immunity shields government officials perform- ing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Randi Hyatt v. Callahan County

843 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 18, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … “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 conduct.’”

Horwitz v. State Board of Medical Examiners of State of Colorado

822 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

or qualified immunity. … Horwitz's license and refused to reinstate it until May 1, 1984, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of due process. Dr.

ESTATE OF CASSARA BY CASSARA v. State of Ill.

853 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 19, 1994

In order to penetrate defendants’ shield of qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary functions, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established … established and the state officials’ actions clearly illegal.

Brandy Hamilton v. Nathaniel Turner

845 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 12, 2017

Kindred moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the incident, bystander liability was not clearly established in the Fifth Circuit in cases not involving excessive … DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity “only to the extent that the appeal concerns the purely legal question whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Richard Winn David Ehrlich Newlin Corporation and Somerset of Virginia, Inc. v. Wayne L. Lynn

941 F.2d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 4, 1991

Qualified immunity is the more limited type of immunity, and generally protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as [their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity because their actions were violative of “clearly established statutory and constitutional rights” and they should have been aware of this.

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.”

Shultz v. Allegheny County

835 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2011

Accordingly, absolute or qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leve *25 to v. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Urban v. Henley

654 F. Supp. 870 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 20, 1987

The Court has established an elaborate set of rules on immunity for both state and federal officers. … The law does not appear to have been clearly established on the claims made by the plaintiff since the plaintiff’s case was the first controversy involving these issues.