Case law

Cousins v. Lockyer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Bradway v. Town of Southampton

826 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds with respect to the medical indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment … Tollaksen, 257 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (2d Cir.2007) (explaining that government officers “are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them

Dean v. Munch

4 F. App'x 380 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2001

To be considered “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that … A claim of immunity under the Idaho Tort Claims Act is not an immunity from suit, as qualified and absolute immunity are.

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 .

Vista Community Services v. Dean

107 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1997

We review de novo a district court's ruling that a government official's conduct violated clearly established law such that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Johnson v. … A government official may immediately appeal the denial of qualified immunity when the issue appealed concerns whether or not certain facts show a violation of "clearly established law." Mitchell v.

Moran v. City of New Rochelle

346 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified .immunity, government officials are shielded from liability flowing from their performance of discretionary functions as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified Immunity for Robert Bongiorni and Karl Cacciola Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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.

Diruzza v. County of Tehama

206 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 21, 2000

The district court further held, in the alternative, that individual defendants Heard and Floyd were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right. … For purposes of determining qualified immunity, the law must be clearly established at the time of the defendant’s acts. In this case, the alleged retaliation occurred in 1995.

Brandee Buschmann v. Kansas City Police Department

76 F.4th 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 10, 2023

The court ruled that Beck was entitled to qualified immunity, and dismissed the claim against the Board on the ground that no individual officer was liable. … Qualified immunity shields a police officer from suit unless his conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

322 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 15, 2017

immunity. … Qualified Immunity from Individual Capacity Claims a.

Creighton v. Anderson

724 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 1989

Qualified immunity is designed to protect from liability government officials who perform discretionary functions "if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … First, a government official is immune from liability unless the constitutional right which has *658 allegedly been violated was "clearly established." Id.

Dunn v. Village of Put-In-Bay

291 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 2003

was clearly established at the time that the injury occurred. … The Village and Township, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity. E.

Turner v. Martire

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

Rudi Acosta Alma Acosta v. City and County of San Francisco Daniel Yawczak

83 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 18, 1996

Qualified Immunity Determining whether a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity involves the .consideration of two questions: “1) Was the law governing the officer’s conduct clearly established? … hold that Yawczak is not entitled to qualified immunity.

State of Michigan v. Brandon McQueen

Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2013

’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his own debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with his … they are clearly erroneous.31 A ruling is clearly erroneous “if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”32 III.

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society

45 Cal. App. 4th 163 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

would violate a clearly established constitutional *178 or statutory right. … Further, an officer’s unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. (Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247 ; Coleman v.

Stapleton v. Lozano

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 14, 2025

a violation of clearly-established law.” … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Cope v.

Nichols v. Bourbon County Sheriff's Dept.

26 F. Supp. 3d 634 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 12, 2014

a clearly established constitutional right. … Sheriff Matthews is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. D.

Toth v. City of Dothan, Ala.

953 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 6, 1996

Both Hadden and Ingram claim they are immune from suit under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Thus, in following the framework established in Siegert , the court must first establish whether the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation before delving into the qualified immunity analysis. See Tinney v.

William Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent Sch Dist

832 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2016

To establish that qualified immunity does not apply, Brinsdon must prove that Santos or Cavazos (1) “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … On the compelled speech claim, the district court granted summary judgment to Santos and Cavazos under step two of the qualified immunity inquiry, that is, no clearly established right was violated.