Case law

City of Houston v. Daniels

66 S.W.3d 420 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 21, 2002

Sovereign immunity protects governmental entities from liability whereas official, or qualified, immunity protects individual governmental employees. DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1995). … However, section 51.014(5) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that the denial of a motion for summary judgment may be appealed if it is based on an assertion of qualified immunity. City of Houston v.

McIntosh v. Weinberger

617 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 24, 1984

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Assuming arguendo, that the law was not clearly established at the time the results of the reconstruction panel were destroyed, defendant Turner’s defense of qualified immunity should be sustained.

Horlock v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

890 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

immunity from damages because defendants’ actions allegedly did not violate any “clearly established” right of plaintiff, as required in order to avoid the qualified immunity of public officials to such suits. … Horlock had no property interest, the defendants did not violate a “clearly established right” and thus were entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 due process claim.

James T. Giovanetti, D.D.S. And Patricia Ann Giovanetti v. Nicholas J. Tomasi, D.D.S. Wally McLaughlin Robert L. Schroeder, D.D.S. And Omar Whisman

25 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1994

The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the reason that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 4 It is well established that "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established

Martin v. City of Oklahoma City

180 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 14, 2016

Plaintiffs Claim of Retaliatory Arrest The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs claim of retaliatory arrest because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an individual … D.Plaintiff’s Claim of Conspiracy The Officers contend they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability on Plaintiffs conspiracy claim because it was not clearly established in October 2011 that an evidentiary cover-up

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

705 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 28, 1998

The legislature established a fund and procedures for carrying out the necessary remedial measures. … The language of the immunity sections, see supra notes 2 and 3, is also comprehensive as to the preclusion of administrative and judicial action against those who qualify.

Christman v. Kick

342 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 28, 2004

More specifically, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … When considering a question of qualified immunity, however, a district court must determine whether, given the “specific context of the case,” the right was clearly established.

Lanman v. Hinson

529 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from tort liability, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights viewed under the applicable constitutional standard

Jean v. Collins

107 F.3d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 7, 1997

Ill A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 when his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … B In deciding whether Shingleton and Collins are entitled to qualified immunity we must next determine whether the specific right infringed was clearly established in 1982. Pritchett v.

Werner v. Wall

836 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2016

Werner’s Eighth Amendment and due process claims for damages against the individual defendants were barred by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that AD 02-10 violated the constitutional … Because clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants in this case that the procedures set forth in AD 02-10 were unlawful, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Matt Moonin v. Kevin Tice

868 F.3d 853 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

We must grant Tice qualified immunity unless Moonin can show that Tice “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City of San Francisco v. … The City previously had required officers to obtain prior written 8 We emphasize that we are here considering only the clearly established law prong of qualified immunity, not whether requiring notice or approval

De Ventura v. Keith

169 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 21, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials, such as law enforcement officials, are not liable under federal law for civil damages to the extent that their conduct does not contravene “clearly established rights … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). 1 To obtain qualified immunity under Saucier, Defendant Keith must establish that in light of the clearly established law on probable cause for warrantless arrests, he reasonably

Hofschneider v. City of Vancouver

182 F. Supp. 3d 1145 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2016

Schaffer also argues that his search and seizure of Hofschneider was conducted reasonably, and that, even if it was not, he is entitled to qualified immunity because any right he did violate was not “clearly established.” … the “right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Edwards v. Parish

District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 8, 2022

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (Qualified immunity protects officials who “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359–60 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper as long as there remains any material factual dispute regarding

Toler v. Troutt

631 F. App'x 545 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 12, 2015

They filed this interlocutory appeal based on qualified immunity. … If such a general statement of the constitutional violation that must be clearly established were sufficient, qualified immunity would almost never be granted.

Gary Beavers v. James Edgerton

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 18, 2019

“the law regarding a prison guard’s use of excessive force was clearly established by 1994”); see also Blankenhorn v. … Regardless, it is “clearly established that the officers [may] not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care” to pretrial detainees. Clement v.

Daker v. Ferrero

506 F. Supp. 2d 1295 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity provides “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … As stated, in determining whether Defendants have qualified immunity, the Court determines (1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Kaufman v. Carter

952 F. Supp. 520 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 9, 1996

I conclude that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not “clearly established” that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA apply to prisons. … Qualified immunity is not available where an official violates “clearly established statutory ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Madison v. Cruz

359 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2019

The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … I find that had Defendant McDonald been aware that Plaintiff was outed as an informant and previously assaulted but declined to act to ensure Plaintiff's safety, it would qualify as a violation of Plaintiff's clearly established

Ronald Fosnight v. Robert Jones

41 F.4th 916 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Qualified im- munity protects government officials from damages liability unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 3 We note for completeness that the Supreme Court has never authorized a Bivens action … The district court may entertain a qualified-immunity defense on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.