Case law

Tucker v. Evans

276 F.3d 999 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 14, 2002

Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998). 5 The prison employees are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated Tucker's "clearly established" constitutional rights. Harlow v. … There was no violation of clearly established law in the training of Daniels, and thus the claim is without merit. III.

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken

Hammett v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services

153 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

Because Plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, and given the scant factual record on this Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is premature to grant qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that court cannot frame question of qualified immunity as factual to avoid determining whether the law was clearly established at time of alleged violation). 17 AFFIRMED.

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.

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 .

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.”

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.