Case law

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

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Michael M. Gorman v. Renault Robinson, George C. Cramer, and William T. Salem

977 F.2d 350 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 9, 1992

In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the doctrine of qualified immunity shielded them from suit. … The Supreme Court has made clear that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a defense to liability. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 529 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

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

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.