Case law

Ruegsegger v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF CTY. COM'RS

197 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual Sheriff Defendants maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity from Claims One, Two, Three and Four because the contours of the pertinent law were not clearly established on April 20 … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Tracy Ray Vaughan, and Mark Koch, Donald Nelson, and Mark Osborne v. James Ricketts

950 F.2d 1464 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 13, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could reasonably have thought that their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the information they possessed. Anderson v. … By 1984, it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires that rectal *1469 searches in prisons be conducted with reasonable cause and in a reasonable manner. Bell v.

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.

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.

Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 15, 2006

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the highest court in the state in which the case arose provide the case law capable of clearly establishing the boundaries of rights in the qualified immunity … Once these elements have been satisfactorily demonstrated, “there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense” because “the use of force ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm’ is clearly established to be a violation

John Sandul, Robert Sandul, and Devona Sandul v. Timothy Larion, Sgt. Robert Stevenson, and Sgt. Lawrence Little

119 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 1997

In order to assert a violation of a “clearly established” right and defeat a qualified immunity defense, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is … We conclude that Larion is not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions violat *1257 ed Sandul’s clearly established First Amendment rights of which a reasonable officer should have known.

Baddour, Inc. And Bmc Sales, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Appellants v. United States of America, Michael E. Posey

802 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 17, 1986

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (emphasis added). … In this case and on these facts the plaintiff clearly has not done so. 3 Were Baddour’s failure to overcome Posey’s qualified immunity defense not enough, the damages suit against Posey could have been dismissed for failure

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

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.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Knapper v. Connick

681 So. 2d 944 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Oct 15, 1996

Distinguishing between absolute immunity, which will defeat a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations which often must be established by evidence at trial, the Court concluded … But the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor's immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Green River District Health Deparment v. Wigginton

764 S.W.2d 475 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1989

Our Court held that the purchase of indemnifying insurance by the governmental entity, per se, did not establish a right to sue the governmental entity which was otherwise immune. … We held that “the statute clearly contemplates a limited waiver of governmental immunity to the extent of the insurance coverage.” Id. at 40 .

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.

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

related to that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … performed rather than on the office itself, for, as the district court observed, it is established that prosecutors have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

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

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District

171 F. App'x 877 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 2006

not clearly established as of April 2001, must fail. … Specifically, Derry asserts that “it cannot be reasonably argued that it was clearly established in April of 2001 (pre-Neilson) that ... the comparators were ... similarly situated to the respondent and that the decision

Jones v. Allen

312 Ga. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 21, 2011

Mathews did not establish that they were entitled to qualified immunity, as the record evidence establishes that the circumstances are similar to those present in Keenan . As in Keenan , it is undisputed that M. … Allen was entitled to qualified immunity. The Joneses argue that the holding of these cases — that MCG resident physicians are entitled to qualified immunity — should not be extended to Dr.

Roman v. Appleby

558 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1983

Immunity Defendants’ defense of qualified or “good faith” immunity is much more persuasive. The immunity concept is based upon the need to ensure principled and conscientious governmental decision-making. Crowder v. … established law, thereby entitling her to the defense of qualified immunity, I also find that defense of immunity is supported by the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) of 1975, 11 P.S. § 2201, et seq