Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Roth v. Veteran's Administration of the Government of the United States

856 F.2d 1401 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a federal official has qualified immunity unless s/he “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … of qualified immunity.

Concepcion v. MUNICIPALITY OF GURADBO

558 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 11, 2007

Plaintiffs opposed this request stating that the Complaint survives a qualified immunity attack because it charges Defendants with violations of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights, of which co-defendants … Furthermore, as to the other prongs of the qualified immunity test, the right to be free from any sort of political discrimination is a clearly established constitutional right which a reasonable government employee is aware

Novoselsky v. Brown

822 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2016

Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Claim We turn next to Brown’s qualified immunity defense to Novoselsky’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. … Qualified immunity protects government agents from liability for their actions so long as they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Amundsen v. Jones

533 F.3d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 15, 2008

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of -6- the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even … was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Lopez v. Modisitt

488 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 4, 1980

a qualified immunity. … Likewise, this Court is not satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity in the instant case can summarily be established.

Chavez v. Jefferson County, Texas

District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 21, 2023

The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: (1) “whether an official’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right of the plaintiff”; and (2) “whether the right was clearly established … Regardless of qualified immunity’s origins, this Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court precedent—both which recognize qualified immunity.

Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold

873 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

), from which defendants claim qualified immunity. … Because Yalkut’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.

David L. McCartney, M.D. Darryl Williams, M.D. And Dorma Kohler v. Donald R. May, M.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … (footnote: 4) Appellants have failed to conclusively establish McCartney and Williams’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

Jones v. Dalton

867 F. Supp. 2d 572 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2012

First, “[t]he threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. … immunity analysis has been satisfied. 10 Furthermore, there can be little doubt that the right to be free from searches and seizures not based on probable cause or a recognized exception was clearly established.

Kanciper v. Lato

989 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 7, 2013

If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would … Although qualified immunity typically is asserted by police officers, the qualified immunity standard of arguable probable cause also applies to prosecutors. See Murphy v.

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard

918 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Minard filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because, even assuming he violated Cruise-Gulyas's constitutional rights, those rights were not clearly established. … Qualified immunity protects police from personal liability unless they violate a person's clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. Kisela v.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

24 F. Supp. 3d 121 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity For much the same reason, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “A right is clearly established and immunity will not issue only if ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 50-51 (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct

Baylor Scott & White v. Peyton

549 S.W.3d 242 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 19, 2018

We therefore focus our analysis on whether BHCS qualifies for immunity under section 285.072. See itation index="23" url="https://cite. case.law/citations/? … BHCS Does Not Qualify for Immunity under Section 285.072 As set forth above, a hospital district management company is entitled to governmental immunity under the TTCA "in its management or operation of a hospital under a

GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia

132 F.3d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1998

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions8 are immune not just from liability, but from suit, unless the conduct which is the basis for suit violates "clearly established … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant's actions violate a clearly established right.

Thomas v. Hurley

51 F. App'x 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2002

We agree that Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. 1 AFFIRMED.

Casines v. Murchek

766 F.2d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1985

Qualified Immunity The district court ruled that the appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Casines’s right to a pre-termi-nation hearing was clearly established at the time of her discharge. … Rather, she argues that appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct violated clearly established state law.

Hassell v. Fischer

879 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

 immunity because they had  violated  clearly  established  law,  announced  in  Earley  I,  when  they  administratively  added  and  then  applied  the  conditions  of  a  PRS  term  to  Hassell.7  The  District  Court …   clearly  established  statutory  or  constitutional  rights  of  which a reasonable person would have known.’”