Case law

Costello v. City of Burlington

708 F. Supp. 2d 438 · District Court, D. Vermont · Mar 26, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, a rule disallowing application of Burlington’s City Ordinance to the facts of this case would not be “clearly established,” and Sergeant Lewis would be entitled to qualified immunity even assuming a constitutional violation

Mary Lois Tillman v. Edward Coley, Jr., Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Bleckley County, Ga.

886 F.2d 317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1989

The court reviews a district court’s denial of a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity de novo. Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.1989). Qualified immunity is defined in Harlow v. … Sheriff Coley concedes that clearly established law requires probable cause to support an arrest, but he argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability “as long as their actions

KRL v. Estate of Moore

512 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Although our prior decision granted Riebe qualified immunity, it denied qualified immunity for Hall.

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.

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC

139 F. Supp. 3d 560 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 9, 2015

The record establishes that the immunity provided by this statute will also be asserted with regard to the claims against the other defendants. 5 The “no possibility” standard used to assess claims of fraudulent joinder aims … In contending that the plaintiffs’ claims against Riverview are clearly baseless in light of the immunity provided by the PLCAA, defendants -ask this Court to determine that the -word “use” in the negligent entrustment exception

Cotton v. Mansour

634 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 11, 1986

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity it must appear that the defendant official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... … The Harlow test for qualified immunity applies to suits against state officials under § 1983. Id. at 818 n. 30, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 n. 30.

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

414 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2006

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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.” … Any Constitutional Right was Not Clearly Established Assuming arguendo that the D.C.

Davis v. Education Service Center

62 S.W.3d 890 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Dec 5, 2001

. § 22.051(a); rather, Region VIII qualifies for sovereign immunity as an agency of the State. Sovereign immunity, unless waived, insulates the State of Texas, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages. … In Matthews , the court ruled the defendant did not have a qualified immunity for violating Title VII. Id. at 847 .

Moore v. Lightfoot

286 F. App'x 844 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 27, 2008

Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, however, we find that Guyton’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Guyton took measures to protect Moore from danger. … Guyton is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Harcz v. Boucher

300 F. Supp. 3d 945 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 2018

immunity because the Sixth Circuit's prior case law clearly established that the officers' conduct was unlawful. … "clearly established" prong.

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers

629 F. App'x 710 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2015

It is well established, however, that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Rights The second step of our qualified immunity analysis asks whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. at 306 .

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Marin v. Gonzales, et al.

2005 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Dec 19, 2005

Qualified Immunity. … 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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … We reinstate our prior decision in its entirety and supplement, by this opinion, our previous discussion of qualified immunity. SO ORDERED. .

Mencer v. Bd. of Ed./Birmingham, AL

134 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 1998

Thus, the court did not deny Hammonds qualified immunity based only on "evidence sufficiency" but on its belief that a reasonable person in Hammonds' position would have known his conduct violated clearly established law … Thus, if we are confronted with an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, we may exercise our discretion to review the district court's preliminary determination as a means of reaching the issue of clearly established

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

Defoor v. Evesque

694 So. 2d 1302 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 2, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defoor also contends that Evesque was not entitled to immunity while performing the function of inspecting and cleaning the test site. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.