Case law

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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

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

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

Muzychka v. Tyler

563 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1983

Judith Tyler, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has moved for summary judgment claiming she is immune from liability on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly, an FBI agent’s decision whether to stop and search a suspect is a discretionary function entitling the agent to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Druckenmiller v.

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.’”

Greenwood v. of New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court's conclusion that Greenwood's property right in his clinical staff privileges was not clearly established and that … "Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Iacobucci v. Town of Pembroke

193 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 4, 1999

"Hence, state officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably … Hence, Boulter was not entitled to qualified immunity. III.

Franklin Building Corp. v. City of Ocean City

946 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1996

qualified immunity. … “clearly established”_ In instances of violations which are not clearly established, a showing of improper motive will not defeat a qualified immunity claim. Grant, 98 F.3d at 125 n. 6. This is one such case.

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

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

Perry, Peary v. the City of Houston and George Greanias

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.