Case law

Hazel L. Wilson v. Steve Northcutt, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Malvern, Arkansas, City of Malvern, Arkansas

441 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 21, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials from the costs of trial and the burdens of broad discovery unless their discretionary acts violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Harlow v. … Northcutt is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Towing the Café Fish.

Foremost Insurance Co. v. Public Service Commission

985 S.W.2d 793 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1998

Public officials are provided qualified immunity for their official acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Respondent argues that even if the facts alleged are true, Respondent did not violate any clearly established right of Appellant.

Hilliard v. City And County Of Denver

930 F.2d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 1991

Sec. 25-1-310 (1989), had given rise to this constitutional violation. 4 The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the law controlling their actions was not clearly established, and that they therefore had qualified immunity … Such broad, nonspecific allegations are insufficient to defeat the defendants' claim to qualified immunity.

Pinnock v. City of New Haven

553 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 14, 2008

“If the right at issue was not clearly established by then existing precedent, then qualified immunity shields the defendant. … Even if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, however, an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action at issue

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.

Christopher Cremeans v. William Wrenn, Christopher Kench, Michael Zenk, Jon Fouts, and Nichole Kipphut

2019 DNH 060 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 28, 2019

capacities are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established in 2017. … Qualified immunity shields individual officers from claims for damages “‘unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time

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.

S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder

929 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … Browder is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. D.

Traversa v. Ford

718 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Assuming arguendo that Traversa stated viable claims under § 1983 and § 1985, the Defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation … Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claims arising from the decision to delay investigation of Traversa’s Complaint. 4.

Douglas Rush v. Barbara Perryman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush's rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush's right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo

72 Haw. 586 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1992

right which was clearly *589 established at the time the defendant acted. … Under Siegert the protected right must be clearly established.

Bryant v. Rudman

933 F. Supp. 270 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

Qualified immunity bars civil damages suits against government officials acting in the performance of their official discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Leiser v. Moore

903 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

The defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” … We can resolve this appeal by considering only the clearly-established prong of the qualified- immunity defense. See Bowling v.

Tamez v. City of San Marcos

118 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1997

"clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the defendant must both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. Gomez v.

Torres v. Grunkmeyer

601 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Feb 1, 1985

The Court would further note that if such actions were entitled to legislative immunity, legislators and their staffs would be free to violate clearly established rights and privileges with impunity, something the Speech … Plaintiff seeks a directed verdict on the qualified immunity question.

Owensby v. City of Cincinnati

414 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity 11 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Was Owensby's Fourteenth Amendment Right to Adequate Medical Care Clearly Established?

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 8 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 known."

Green v. Thoryk

30 F. Supp. 2d 862 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 1998

. ¶¶ 18, 22, qualify as a violation of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, the standard necessary to overcome qualified immunity. See Harlow v. … Refusal to provide redress for baseless claims does not violate a clearly established right.

Pierce v. Gilchrist

359 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 2, 2004

Clearly Established Law When evaluating a qualified immunity defense, after identifying the constitutional right allegedly violated, courts must determine whether the conduct was objectively reasonable in light of … In response to defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court analyzed whether the law prohibiting such conduct was clearly established as of January 8, 1986, the day of the alleged arrest. Id. at 581.

Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.