Case law

Robinson v. Cook

863 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 21, 2012

“[T]he second, ‘clearly established,’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir.2009). … Whether the Constitutional Right was Clearly Established The defendants argue that even if Mario’s constitutional rights were violated, they are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established

Patel v. Hall

849 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2017

Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to these claims, so the burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish both that the defendants violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the … We must not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality” because “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’” Id.

Bloom v. Miami-Dade County

816 F. Supp. 2d 1265 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 16, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … ’s actions violate clearly established law.”

Entergy, Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska

241 F.3d 979 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2001

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 The Generators and USE respond that qualified immunity is not available to the officials in their individual capacities because clearly established federal law was violated, that … Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Mara v. Rilling

921 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 2019

But  even  if  the  answer  is  yes,  or  not  definitively  no,  a  defendant  may  still  be  entitled  to  qualified  immunity  if  the  right  was  not  clearly  established  at  the  time  of  his  challenged actions … The district court still needed to address the second qualified  immunity  inquiry,  i.e.,  whether  the  rights  at  issue  were  clearly  established  in  the  context  presented,  such  that  every  reasonable  officer

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

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

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).

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.

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.’”

Lightner v. Tremont Auto Auction, Inc.

564 F. Supp. 1112 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 1983

The Court in Butz established a qualified immunity for government officials performing discretionary functions. Id. at 504, 98 S.Ct. at 2909. … Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1007 (7th Cir.1982) (question of fact whether defendant officials should reasonably have known that their conduct would violate clearly established constitutional norms).

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