Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

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

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

37 Kan. App. 2d 694 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Apr 27, 2007

The District claimed that Poston’s injury occurred in an area that was close enough to the indoor gymnasium to qualify as an “open area” for purposes of recreational use immunity. … The court noted that there was an intent by the legislature to “establish a broad application of recreational use immunity.” 273 Kan. at 592 . In Robison v. State, 30 Kan.

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

A.B. ex rel. B.S. v. Adams-Arapahoe 28J School District

831 F. Supp. 2d 1226 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 28, 2011

Was the constitutional violation clearly established? Rice has asserted qualified immunity as a defense to these claims. Thus, she is liable only if her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Burke also asserts qualified immunity. Therefore, she is liable for these constitutional violations only if they were clearly established at the time they were committed.

Harris v. Coweta County

433 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2005

The defendants having established their eligibility for qualified immunity, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appro *812 priate. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194 . … Is Scott entitled to qualified immunity?

Nicole Howell v. Rob Sanders

668 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2012

issue [] ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … The only remaining inquiry to establish qualified immunity under Kentucky law is whether the facts suggest that Sanders acted in bad faith. See Rowan Cnty., 201 S.W.3d at 475.

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

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?

Potter v. Board of Regents

Nebraska Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2014

. § 20-148 (Reissue 2012) and that the managers are protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. … As to Bockstadter and Losee, the court found that the constitu- tional right allegedly violated had not been clearly established and that thus, the claim was barred by qualified immunity.

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.