Case law

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.

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.

Lauren Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

967 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2020

whether the right was clearly established or not. … On the second prong of qualified immunity, I agree with the majority that to determine whether a law is clearly established, we need not find a case “directly on point.” (Maj.

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.

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.

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 .

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. . . .

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

Caygill v. Jablonski

78 Ohio App. 3d 807 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1992

R.C. 4123.741 clearly provides immunity to a tortfeasor “employee” from liability for damages resulting from injuries received in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment. … The General Assembly has established certain basic guidelines to assist in determining legislative intent.

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

Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Cannon

864 F. Supp. 1332 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 13, 1994

violated a clearly established constitutional right defined in Wide-man he is not entitled to qualified immunity. *1337 Applying the test enumerated in Courson v. … Lacking a clearly established right the Courson test cannot be satisfied, and so Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

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.

GUILLEMARD GINORIO v. Contreras

409 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity In their motion, the defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified *111 immunity in relation to plaintiffs’ due process claims. … immunity, the Court must consider “(1) whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether a

Fordyce v. City of Seattle

840 F. Supp. 784 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 1993

Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” and “ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … The Ninth Circuit has recently held: When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for Fourth Amendment violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles

Humes v. Gilless

108 F. App'x 266 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2004

Thus, we may review “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir.1999). … Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Scott Furman Maxey, a Minor, by His Mother & Next Friend, Dianna Maxey v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Heriberto Martinez, Individually John Dentist, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually, and James Borren, Individually, Joseph Donald Cole, by His Mother & Next Friend, Virginia Cole v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Luis A. Reinoso, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually John Dentist, Individually, and James Borren, Individually

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: 13 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Ronkin v. Vihn

71 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government 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 … Put succinctly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” Saucier v.

Godman v. City of Fort Wright

234 S.W.3d 362 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Aug 31, 2007

The access is contingent upon the receipt of a report from a qualified traffic engineer, agreed upon by the Zoning Administrator, establishing that the special treatment will have no adverse affect on the roadway safety and … Nevertheless, the Godmans point out that there is no immunity for a discretionary act if it violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights, or if it is done willfully or maliciously with intent to

Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo

113 F.4th 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 3, 2024

As the Supreme Court stated in Mitchell: The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established … And, of course, there’s a class of Bivens cases where raising a qualified immunity defense would be frivolous. Qualified immunity is only available when the constitutional law is not “clearly established.” See Wilk v.

Kerr v. Lyford

171 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 14, 1999

Moving for summary judgment, Goar, Minshew, Fleig, and Baggs claimed qualified immunity; Lyford asserted absolute and qualified immunity. B. … Thus, to proceed against a defendant claiming qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence and violation of a clearly established constitutional right; the defendant may then show that he was performing