Case law

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

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.”

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

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.

Rossignol v. Voorhaar

321 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 5, 2004

to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 4 Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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?

Nicol v. Auburn-Washburn USD 437

231 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 1, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … Ordinarily, for a law to be clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision" on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff

Jackson v. Dackman Co.

422 Md. 357 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 24, 2011

Thus, the application of traditional or well-established immunities from suit has been held not to violate Article 19. See, e.g., Rios v. … Preliminarily, it should be noted that the immunity granted to defendants by §§ 6-828, 6-835, 6-836, and 6-836.1 of the Act is not, in any respect, a traditional or well-established *381 immunity from personal injury actions

Batyukova v. Doege

994 F.3d 717 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2021

We AFFIRM the grant of qualified immunity and summary judgment. … An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s conduct either did not violate a federal right of the plaintiff or that right was not clearly established at the time of the relevant events.

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

Chavez-Rodriguez v. City of Santa Fe

616 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2009

It is not clear from the briefing whether the Defendants are moving on an absence-of-evidence issue in. their qualified-immunity motion apart from whether the legal principles about causation are clearly established. … The question under the clearly established law step of qualified immunity is whether the “right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

Andy Thayer v. Ralph Chiczewski

705 F.3d 237 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights Nos. 10-1974 & 10-2064 15 of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id.

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

Narducci v. Village of Bellwood

444 F. Supp. 2d 924 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2006

If such a violation has taken place, the court must determine whether that right was “clearly established” (id). … Clearly Established Law Once a constitutional violation has been identified, the dispositive question for a qualified immunity defense is whether the law was “clearly established” when the official acted, such that a reasonable

Gessner v. City of Union

159 Ohio App. 3d 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2004

Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the latter two grounds, but overruled the motion to the extent that it was based on Union’s qualified immunity. … .” {¶ 31} Discharge is clearly a matter that stems from an employment relationship.

Isengard v. New Mexico Public Education Department

708 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Qualified immunity shields state officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Williams v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center

440 Md. 573 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 21, 2014

Although the Health Care Providers would not qualify for immunity under subsection (a), the General Assembly clearly included them when drafting subsections (b) and (c). … That the General Assembly referred to all of Part III, including these restrictions on admittance, when establishing the prerequisites to qualifying for immunity, demonstrates its intent that the immunity extend beyond

Torres v. City of Madera

655 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2009

Defendant Noriega is entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning when weapon confusion would violate the Fourth Amendment was not clearly established at the time of the October 27, 2002 shooting. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Burdette v. Panola County ex rel. Darby

53 F. Supp. 3d 923 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 20, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from suit based on the performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law … If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A.

Russell v. Coughlin

910 F.2d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 2, 1990

On the eve of trial, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because Russell had no clearly established liberty interest in remaining out of keeplock they were protected by qualified immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official "if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights."