Case law

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.

Murray-Ruhl v. Shiawassee

246 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

Katz’s two-pronged qualified immunity analysis asks whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Garner provides a “clearly established” right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Did Jenkins’s Conduct Violate a Constitutional Right?

Baumeister v. New Mexico Commission for the Blind

425 F. Supp. 2d 1250 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 20, 2006

. § 1983 generally are entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that their actions violated a specific constitutional right and that the right which they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of … P. 12(b)(6), and “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. v. HALLIBURTON

328 Ga. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 31, 2014

Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including that defendants were entitled to sovereign and/or qualified immunity. … And “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” Ruff, 315 Ga. App. at 456 (footnote omitted).

Hernandez v. Selsky

572 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008

“[Pjublic officials ... are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then extant … “Hence, a defendant is not liable if he did not violate clearly established law or it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that he was not violating clearly established law.”

Clark v. Milam

152 F.R.D. 66 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Dec 1, 1993

It is difficult to establish a defense is clearly insufficient. Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1112 (E.D.N.C.1984). … Struck. 16 Failure to plead RICO allegations with sufficient probability to establish probable cause of causal connection. Struck. 17 No duty. Struck. 18 Sovereign immunity, qualified privilege.

Willis v. Neal

247 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2007

Willis also bears the burden of establishing that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 778 (6th Cir.2006). … This court has previously held, as did the district court, that Tennessee law provides qualified or good faith immunity of government employees for state law torts. Rogers v.

Crosby v. University of Kentucky

863 F.3d 545 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2017

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 … The closest precedent in this circuit, in fact, noted that this area of law was not so clearly established as to overcome the defense of qualified immunity. See Garvie v.

Wright v. Butts

953 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1996

The state defendants contend that, in their individual capacities, they are immune from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Ramirez-Lluveras v. Pagan-Cruz

833 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2011

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine is an “escape hatch” from a state actor’s liability under section 1983. … A state actor does not benefit from qualified immunity if: (1) the plaintiff makes out a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

57 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

‘good faith’ qualified immunity cannot attach.” … ’t do it’ or that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Berry v. Craftsman

148 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1977

The intent of this statute is clearly to establish immunity for all governmental bodies except in conformity with the statute, N. J. S. A. 59 :1-2. English v. Newark Housing Auth., 138 N. J. Super. 425, 428 (App. … A. 59 :1-2 clearly dictates that defendant may not be held liable.

Heller v. Woodward

735 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 10, 1990

Plaintiff’s right to be in the room and to perform the duties of a reporter is clearly established under Perry Education Ass’n v. … In light of the above facts clearly in dispute which are material to defendant’s claim of immunity, I find that an appeal of the denial of the defendant’s summary judgment motion on the issue of qualified immunity is baseless

Smith v. Daniel

452 S.W.3d 575 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Dec 11, 2014

clearly established and raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right. … her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Doctor Awanna Leslie v. Hancock County Board of Education

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

had was not clearly established. … “[T]o obtain qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he acted within his discretionary authority.”

Brown v. Gammage

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of … Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Based on this finding, the Court need not determine whether an implicated right was clearly established at the time.

Pleasant v. Lovell

654 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 12, 1987

Alternatively, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established constitutional rights which a reasonable investigator would have known. … Under Harlow , then, qualified immunity is established if it is proven that there was no violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers and John Urbank, Lisa Bukowski v. City of Akron, Patrick Summers

326 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 2003

As governmental officials acting within the scope of their duty, Urbank and Summers can claim qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Brockinton v. City of Sherwood

503 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 4, 2007

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages when they are performing discretionary functions and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2)demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and

Tucker v. Atwater

815 S.E.2d 34 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … We don't reach that question here because the absence of clearly established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity. But there's no reason why the next such case should face the same problem.