Case law

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.

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.

Frazier v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established” at the time of the violation. 3 It is hard to understand why the Defendants waited until two years after this lawsuit was filed to raise the issue of qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

Tidwell v. City & County of Denver

62 P.3d 1020 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2002

vehicle operator or the governmental entity qualifies for immunity. … Therefore, he was not required to use his lights and sirens to qualify for immunity under the GIA.

Molina-Gomes v. Welinski

676 F.3d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Hope v. … The test for whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity depends on: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

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.

Ronnie Lee McKnight v. John Rees, Daryll Richardson and John Walker

88 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1996

After reviewing the two lines of cases discussed supra, the Williams court held that “[t]he instant case clearly falls within the class of cases in which qualified immunity may be raised by a private defendant.” … The court believed that the fact that the defendant was “performing duties that would otherwise have to be performed by a public official who would clearly have qualified immunity” weighed in favor of granting qualified immunity

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.”

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.

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?

Joseph W. Democko, Donald Jones and James Samis v. Iowa Department of Natural Resources

840 N.W.2d 281 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 6, 2013

Iowa Code chapter 483A establishes a framework for the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses in Iowa. … In Hoeven, the Eighth Circuit implied certain property rights established under state law may be fundamental.

Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children & Youth

891 F.2d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 15, 1989

a violation of a clearly established legal right. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.