Case law

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

International Islamic Community of Masjid Baytulkhaliq, Inc. v. United States

981 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, Virgin Islands · Aug 29, 1997

Qualified immunity exists where the federal agents' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of *306 which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … Generally, 'good faith' or qualified immunity attaches in a suit for civil damages when the conduct of the government employee performing a discretionary function "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

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.

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.’” 

Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott

639 F. App'x 354 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 2016

Whether a defendant receives qualified immunity turns on two questions: did the defendant violate a constitutionally protected right, and if so, was the right clearly established at the time the act was committed? … In determining whether clearly established law has been violated, we examine the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.

10 F. Supp. 2d 1282 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 17, 1998

or qualified immunity. … Furthermore, in assessing qualified immunity in this case, the court notes that the “[l]aw is clearly established by holdings, not by inferences from language in opinions.” Belcher, 30 F.3d at 1400 .

Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Chapman

814 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

The officers asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the City asserted that plaintiff could not establish municipal liability. Id. at 1 (Page ID #97). … If, for example, “the [City] ratified [the officers’] misconduct which, though unconstitutional, was not in violation of clearly-established law,” a court could find the officers immune but the City liable. Baker v.

Mercer County Board of Education v. Holly Ruskauff

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2019

First, the BOE argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity and that qualified immunity bars negligence claims against governmental officials. … Accordingly, the BOE is entitled to qualified immunity; and, as such, we need not address the BOE’s other assignments of error.

Samaniego v. City of Kodiak

2 P.3d 78 · Alaska Supreme Court · May 19, 2000

The superior court set forth its view of Alaska's law of qualified immunity in a memorandum and ordered the parties to supplement their briefing. It then granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald 14 test for official immunity. 15 Under this standard, "the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the facts

Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque

448 F.3d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 31, 2006

He asserted that he was entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation and, in the alternative, no violation of clearly settled law. … If, on the other hand, a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. . . .

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.

Bell v. Marseilles Elementary School

160 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2001

“A qualified immunity analysis entails a purely objective inquiry to determine whether, at the time of the alleged illegal act, the right asserted by the plaintiff was clearly established in the particular factual context … Board of Educ., 894 F.Supp. 386, 390 (D.Kan.1995) (the law regarding student strip searches is clearly established); Konop, 26 F.Supp.2d at 1196 (denying qualified immunity because “the holding in T.L.O. is not, in any way

Moray v. City of Yonkers

924 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in eases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly … Even when the plaintiffs federal rights are clearly established, qualified immunity may still bar a plaintiffs suit if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate the rights

Pennington v. Hobson

719 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 4, 1989

Only those public officials who can show that their conduct was not violative of any of the plaintiffs clearly established rights are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … In the qualified immunity analysis, the issue was whether a reasonable police officer would have known that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Lucas v. Henrico County School Board

822 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal citations omitted).

People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc.

7 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 7 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Dec 19, 2016

Immunity—L.A. Mun. Code Section 45.19.6.3, Subdivision E In regard to L.A. Mun. Code section 45.19.6.2, the trial court determined defendants did not qualify for immunity under L.A. Mun. … Thus, the use of the disjunctive clearly expresses that the failure to obtain registration either in 2011 or 2012 will suffice to disqualify the defendant from immunity.

Goleta Union Elementary School District v. Ordway

166 F. Supp. 2d 1287 · District Court, C.D. California · Oct 12, 2001

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … /Portland, 988 F.2d at 872 . 14 Although the counter-claimants have met the burden of showing the right at issue was clearly established, Rigby nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if she can show that a reasonable

Golthy v. Alabama

287 F. Supp. 2d 1259 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2003

First, the words of a federal statute or constitutional provision may be specific enough “to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total … If the circumstances facing the official are “materially similar” to those of the fact-specific case, this precedent can clearly establish the applicable law and qualified immunity will not be warranted. Id. at 1352 .

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Arthur J. Cinelli v. Michael Cutillo and Robert Nunez

896 F.2d 650 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 23, 1990

THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … concerning qualified immunity.