Case law

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Mary Dearmon v. Garrett Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id. … P. 41 and state law did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 rights of which a reasonable person … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.

Colston v. Barnhart

130 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

Disputes over the application of the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry are separable from the merits of a controversy because “‘[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant … The semantic switch from discussing the typical qualified-immunity issue of “clearly established law” to a hypothetical (in Behrens) issue of “objective legal reasonableness” creates many of the problems that are now plaguing

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 19, 2004

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) (“[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is ‘clearly established law’ in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes.”

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.

Williams v. Alhambra School District No. 68

234 F. Supp. 3d 971 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 13, 2017

The Board member Defendants are therefore entitled only to qualified immunity. … As discussed above, Williams has “adequately allegefd] the commission of acts that violated clearly established law,” as she must to defeat qualified immunity at this stage of litigation. See Mitchell v.

Ben Krein v. Larry Norris

250 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2001

established right. … violated established law.

Estate of Saylor v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 409 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 16, 2014

Under Harlow , government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The entitlement to qualified immunity involves a two pronged inquiry: “first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v.

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.

Barajas v. Waters

815 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 1993

Qualified Immunity In their motion for dismissal, or alternatively, summary judgment, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is not, however, available as a defense if the officer knew or reasonably should have known that the law clearly proscribes the action taken and that the action violated clearly established statutory or

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.

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.

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

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

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.’”

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.