Case law

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

724 F.3d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

The reasonable officer avoids committing acts that have been clearly established as unconstitutional—for example, handcuffing a prisoner to a fence for a long period of time—as well as other, similar acts, like handcuffing … We note that the specific quantum of force involved in using a Taser was not clearly established at the time that Pirone merely threatened its use, see Bryan v.

Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

Federal courts recognize a qualified immunity for public officials, which is analogous although not identical to our official immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officers with discretionary authority from liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Johnson v. BOARD OF POLICE COM'RS

370 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 27, 2005

To establish qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, Defendant Warnecke must show that she is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint. Bradford v. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test requires the Court to consider whether the constitutional rights allegedly violated were "clearly established."

Taylor v. City of Shreveport

653 So. 2d 232 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1995

Further, the court found that the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because *236 their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional principle which a reasonable person would have known." … . § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Gessner v. City of Union

159 Ohio App. 3d 43 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2004

Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the latter two grounds, but overruled the motion to the extent that it was based on Union’s qualified immunity. … .” {¶ 31} Discharge is clearly a matter that stems from an employment relationship.

Veritext Corp. v. Bonin

259 F. Supp. 3d 484 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 10, 2017

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants raise the same arguments for their damages claim that they do,:-,for the .state action immunity claim. … Furthermore, qualified immunity is an affirmative defense and the Board Members must both plead and establish their entitlement to that defense. Gomez v.

Estate of Young v. Martin

70 F. App'x 256 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 2003

of clearly established law.” … Thus, it is taught that the “threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” 1 Hope v.

Leichter v. Lebanon Board of Education

917 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 9, 2013

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability where the officials’ conduct was not in violation of a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Sudler v. … by qualified immunity.”

Holloman v. Walker County Board of Education

334 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defense Once a governmental actor interposes the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff, in order to overcome it, must demonstrate that the defendant’s actions “violated clearly established statutory … been clearly established.

Knight v. Pugh

801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

White v. Town of Chapel Hill

899 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 1995

Examining a claim of qualified immunity requires “(1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, … establish’ a right for qualified immunity purposes.”

Schroeder v. Kaplan

60 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 7, 1995

Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where the right which the officials have allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred such that a reasonable … the district court properly granted defendants qualified immunity on this claim.

Ruegsegger v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF CTY. COM'RS

197 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claims One, Two, Three and Four because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20 … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners

80 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 1, 1996

In their summary judgment motions, defendants asserted their defense of qualified immunity. … right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Farnworth v. Femling

125 Idaho 283 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1994

State, 123 Idaho 899 , 854 P.2d 242 (1993), the Court stated a three-part test to determine whether a party as *286 serting qualified immunity is entitled to the defense: 1. Was there a clearly established law? 2. … Did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? 3. Was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

JAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 21, 2025

Qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

McDonald v. City of Freeport, Tex.

834 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 5, 1993

To be entitled to qualified immunity, a governmental official must have been performing discretionary functions, and his conduct must not have violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … established law for purposes of qualified immunity inquiries.

Glover by and Through Glover v. Donnell

878 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 2, 1995

If this were a correct characterization of the basis of her claim, then Donnell would clearly enjoy immunity, for the law in Mississippi remains that public officials who are sued merely because they exercise authority over … a particular governmental program or institution are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cooper v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2023

Because of the 2 particularized nature of the qualified immunity analysis, Plaintiffs must establish that “the 3 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established” for each of the individual Whatcom 4 Deputies … Jefferson fails to establish the objective deliberate indifference standard as a matter of law, 6 so each one is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No. 134 at 14–17.

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.