Case law

Karla Kaye Kuehl v. Stephen P. Burtis Terry Satterlee Other John Doe City of Sioux Falls Ezekial James McBeth

173 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 29, 1999

We reject this challenge, but we must first establish our jurisdiction to hear the case. When a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity turns upon an issue of law, it is an appealable “final decision.” … In determining whether the district court should have granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, we must consider whether Kuehl has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and whether

Reed v. Kemper

673 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2016

In this court Reed contends that Kemper is not entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that Turner clearly establishes that the rationale articulated in Kemper’s affidavit is not related to peno-logical objectives. … Michelle Bones, however, is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. Complaint examiners follow the law so long as they do their job in examining complaints in good faith.

Steplight v. Belpulsi

76 Ohio App. 3d 384 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 1991

Pursuant to Harlow , a person is immune from liability if he or she acts in such a way that the action does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … The court restated *390 the purpose of the qualified immunity rule in Anderson v.

Aitken v. Reed

89 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity for Section 1983 Property Interest Claim The State contends that even if Reed failed to provide Aitken a hearing as required by due process, she is protected by qualified immunity. … She is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Aitken’s due process claim.

Graham v. Nadeau, et al.

2009 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 2009

A court ordinarily may move directly to the second step in the analysis and award qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the right on which his claim is based was clearly established when the defendants … Thus, Loven is entitled to qualified immunity for the same reason as Nadeau.

Fairchild v. Coryell Cty

40 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 14, 2022

IV The jailers, however, can assert qualified immunity. They are liable for unlawful conduct only if their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Pearson v. … Timpa, 20 F.4th at 1028–29 (explaining that qualified immunity may provide a defense at the early stages of an encounter but not later stages when the continued use of force violates clearly established law); Aguirre

State v. Saenz

967 S.W.2d 910 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Apr 16, 1998

Although Texas courts use the terms "qualified” and "official" immunity interchangeably, see, e.g., Travis v. … for federal (qualified) and state (official) immunity tests.

Belanger v. City of Hartford

578 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 19, 2008

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … most favorable to the Plaintiff, could conclude that the defendant’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.”

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Pittman v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

640 F.3d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 20, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … She therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. A.

Ayotte v. Barnhart

973 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 24, 2013

immunity because they violated clearly established law by refusing to address the increase in padlock assaults in 2010. … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

Alake v. City of Boston

40 Mass. App. Ct. 610 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jun 27, 1996

child was a policy decision immune from suit, the decision by a school principal and teacher to send an injured handicapped child out to the playground unaccompanied was “clearly ministerial,” and therefore was not immunized … App. 4th 218, 227-228 (1995) (qualified immunity provision of statute did not abrogate general duty to supervise students); Doe v. Escambia County Sch. Bd., 599 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

Mercado v. City of Orlando

323 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2004

Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984) (holding, in the context of “clearly established law,” that “[o]fficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because … The Court thus, finds that the law was not clearly established and that. Officer Padilla and Officer Rouse, as his supervising officer, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Farrelly v. City of Concord

2012 DNH 166 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 1, 2012

Carroll are not entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of RSA 644:4, I(f) was clearly established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Pierce. … Even s o , the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Farrelly’s right to send the e-mails in question was not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Ramirez v. United States

81 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal.” Mitchell v. … contrary to established law that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

In Re El Comandante Management Co., LLC

358 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 10, 2006

Qualified Immunity. … The “clearly established rights” standard makes the defense of qualified immunity a difficult basis for a motion to dismiss. Walton v. Watts, 185 B.R. 963 , 969 n. 5 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1995).

Cullinan v. Abramson

128 F.3d 301 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 18, 1997

The grounds on which the defendants relied included both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights."

Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening

398 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was ‘clearly’ established.” 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (original emphasis). … We stated in Buchholz, citing Drake, that “[i]f defendants prevail on [establishing that Buchholz has no cause of action], ‘it follows a fortiori’ they are entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 865.