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.”

Mossey v. City of Galveston, Tex.

94 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 25, 2000

Plaintiff’s Claim of Unlawful Arrest Is Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. See Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992). … Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Is Not Barred by Qualified Immunity Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police.

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski, in Their Individual Capacities

164 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

Ill Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … That takes us to the second part of the immunity inquiry: whether the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question.

Lucas v. Swain County Board of Education

154 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Both affidavits established the Trust is not authorized and licensed to execute insurance contracts in this State and that it is not considered a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance. … Moreover, defendant established through three affidavits from Hale, Earley and Dunlap that the Trust is neither a licensed and authorized insurer, nor a qualified insurer as determined by the Department.

Mendez v. City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 20, 2024

violated his Fourth Amendment right or that they violated a clearly established right. … Davis, 878 F.3d 226, 234 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding that case that was decided four months after events in question could not clearly establish any rights for the purposes of qualified immunity); Reynolds v.

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault

256 U.S. 554 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 1, 1921

The company is clearly, not answerable in the present action if the ordinary principles of common-law liability are to. be applied. … Whatever name be applied, the element of punishment clearly predominates and Congress has not given its consent that suits of this character be brought against the United' States.

Rodriguez v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2022

were not clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity.” … established for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis.

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.

Chris Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 6, 1996

Because we agree that plaintiffs did not have a clearly established right after Frisby to picket as they did on October 10, 1991, we hold that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Although the qualified immunity issue before us concerns whether plaintiffs had a clearly established right on October 10, 1991, to picket as they did in front of the administrator's home, we note that Madsen left unresolved

Tina Ewell v. Eric Toney

853 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Wetmore v. Gardner

735 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 6, 1990

Qualified Immunity The defendants next contend that they are entitled to a verdict in their favor or a new trial based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … . *983 Because it was clearly established law that the policy could be found constitutional only by a showing of legitimate penological need, the policymaker defendants were entitled to qualified immunity only if it was shown

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

Christopher Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County

777 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 26, 2015

Thus, they are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The tax assessor’s claim to qualified immunity is a closer call. … On one hand, “an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity

Moore v. City of Ferguson

213 F. Supp. 3d 1138 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Oct 4, 2016

“Qualified immunity is a defense available to government officials if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Amrine v. … Qualified immunity determinations are based on a two-part inquiry.

BALLHEIMER v. BATTS

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2020

The qualified immunity analysis poses two questions: (1) whether a defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the 11 This determination hinges on the assumption that … If the warrant was not properly procured, the Officers cannot find protection under qualified immunity for violating Ballheimer’s clearly established right against a warrantless, intrusive medical search. Winston v.

Joseph E. Jackson/W. Va. Dept. of Trans. v. Joseph Wayne Belcher

232 W. Va. 513 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2013

Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983), serves to obliterate the immunity clearly granted under West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a). … articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court: “[W]hile absolute immunity ‘bars a suit at the outset,’ qualified immunity ‘is in the nature of an affirmative defense.’”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 9, 1991

If a plaintiff could conceive of a viable federal legislative or constitutional claim based upon the facts you have stated, only qualified immunity would exist for individual officers involved, and the actual political subdivisions … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), (stating that test of qualified immunity for individual officers turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established

Chivas v. Koehler

182 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1990

Thus, we find he would qualify under Ross for absolute immunity. … The motion can only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.

Schneider v. Simonini

314 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 1998

The trial judge dismissed the case against Post based on qualified immunity. … The test is whether the conduct involved was objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow, supra, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

Durrant v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

96 Conn. App. 456 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 11, 2006

A municipal employee has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable for tortious conduct if he subjects an identifiable person to imminent harm. Burns v. … To succeed in her claim of liability, therefore, the plaintiff must fall within one of the exceptions to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts.