Case law

Lamb v. Bloom

159 Vt. 633 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 12, 1993

White, 155 Vt. 621 , 587 A.2d 975 (1991), which held that we *634 have collateral order jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of summary judgment rejecting a claim of qualified immunity. … Murray holds that good faith exists “where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” 155 Vt. at 630 , 587 A.2d at 980 .

Griner v. Minster Board of Education

128 Ohio App. 3d 425 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1998

may be asserted to establish nonliability: "(6) In addition to any immunity or defense referred to in division (A)(7) of this section and in circumstances not covered by that division * * *, the employee is immune from liability … Rather, appellees proceeded in their motion for summary judgment on the assumption that whether or not negligence was established, they were immune from liability.

Cameron v. Lang

274 Ga. 122 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 25, 2001

OFFICIAL (QUALIFIED) IMMUNITY 1. … issue of qualified immunity in favor of the issue of causation.

Lee v. City of Cleveland

151 Ohio App. 3d 581 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2003

These agreed facts demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Officers Svoboda and Wolf were entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials who perform discretionary functions are generally immune in a Section 1983 action as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Harhay v. Town of Ellington Board of Education

323 F.3d 206 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 21, 2003

Public officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts undertaken in their official capacity, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively … Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three *212 steps.

Conklin v. Cohen

287 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Florida · Dec 5, 1973

Furthermore, it is clear that the owners did not qualify as "contractors" or "statutory employers," within the foregoing definitions thereof. … [owner's] negligence," clearly stated a cause of action against the owners, and, as clearly, were sufficient to withstand the owners' Motion to Dismiss. II.

Washington v. Whitaker

317 S.C. 108 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Dec 19, 1994

Officer Whitaker — Qualified Immunity Officer Whitaker contends he was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. We disagree. … We affirm the denial of summary judgment as to qualified immunity. D.

Figueroa v. Gates

207 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 11, 2002

basis of qualified immunity. … On the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, “whether the right was clearly established,” Katz, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , the Court asks whether “ ‘the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that

Darrell Siggers-El v. David Barlow

412 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that it was not clearly established that 1) a prisoner engages in protected conduct when he complains about a prison officer’s failure to … The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Defendant Barlow qualified immunity.

Than Orn v. City of Tacoma

949 F.3d 1167 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 3, 2020

Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the panel held that plaintiff’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting. … B We turn next to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether Orn’s right to be free from the use of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

PTI, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

100 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, C.D. California · May 25, 2000

Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act. … Moreover, no amount of colorful pleading can obscure the fact that plaintiffs’ challenge is, in fact, to the MSA, the Qualifying Statute and the Model Act, all of which are clearly immunized, as are the actions incidental

Bailey v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 69 of Canadian Cnty. Okla.

896 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 24, 2018

Nonetheless, we affirm the district court's grant of qualified immunity to school superintendent Sean McDaniel because the law was not previously clearly established on this issue. … We AFFIRM the district court's conclusion that McDaniel is entitled to qualified immunity, on the alternative ground that the law at issue was not clearly established at the time he violated it.

Brown v. Pepe

42 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 8, 2014

any of Brown’s “clearly established” constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Dakshesh Parikh v. Citizens Medical Center

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

Appellants argue that the alleged violations of the AKS and Stark Law were not clearly established at the time of the instant offenses. … This clearly established statutory right is precisely what Relators alleged Appellants to have violated.

Bamont v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

163 F. Supp. 3d 138 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2016

analyzing qualified immunity under Saucier v. … established.” 50 Based on our analysis, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for Bamont’s claims in Counts I & II. ii.

Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners

875 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 21, 1994

Malone contends that qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from suit where, as here, their conduct deprived an individual of a clearly-established, federally-protected right. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Wyche v. City of Franklinton

837 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 1993

Caldwell is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that, in light of the clearly established principles governing the use of force to effect an arrest, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that … In Slattery , the Fourth Circuit elaborated upon the scope of qualified immunity: The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right.

Long v. Morris

485 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 3, 2007

Analysis Defendant seeks qualified immunity on plaintiffs claim of excessive force. … Ordinarily, in order for plaintiff to demonstrate that a law is clearly established, “there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must

Wilkins v. Jakeway

44 F. App'x 724 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified immunity protects from liability for civil damages those officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … To avoid the bar of qualified immunity a plaintiff must show that his claimed right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable officer would have understood that his conduct violated

Winder v. Erste

905 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2012

However, even if a plaintiff can establish that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, a defendant seeking qualified immunity can still demonstrate that there were extraordinary … Erste argues that he is protected by qualified immunity from Winder's procedural due process claim because it is not "clearly established" that Winder had a property interest in his continued employment when Erste terminated