Case law

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Ron Rhodes

973 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

The district court also rejected Hoggard’s § 1983 due-process and First-Amendment damages claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right.4 … “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Thomas v. City of Annapolis

113 Md. App. 440 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 31, 1997

If those three conditions are met, the public official enjoys a qualified immunity in the absence of “malice.” … The parties herein do not always clearly distinguish between immunity and privilege.

Fennell v. Simmons

951 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 3, 1997

right was not clearly established. … established, 7 so as to entitle the defendants to judgment on all of Torcasio’s claims of relief on the basis of qualified immunity.

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Cobb v. Marshall

481 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 14, 2007

City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit held that in cases where qualified immunity is implicated, “some factual detail is necessary, especially if [the court is] to be able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly … Qualified Immunity Defendant invokes qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs § 1983 equal protection claim against him in his *1259 individual capacity. (Doc. No. 5 at 15-16.)

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly *479 established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

James Durham v. Robert Jones

737 F.3d 291 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … “To prevail under qualified immunity, [Jones] has to show either that there was no constitutional violation or that the right violated was not clearly established.” Gregg v.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX

274 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2001

, when based on an issue of (2) was clearly established at the time of the law.” … She under the same test federal courts employ for has not shown Gavito violated any constitu- qualified immunity determinations under tional right, much less one clearly established

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.

White v. Town of Chapel Hill

899 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 1995

Examining a claim of qualified immunity requires “(1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, … establish’ a right for qualified immunity purposes.”

Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office

494 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2007

Even where an officer has violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, that officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the right that he violated was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … As the right that Keller is accused of violating was clearly established at the time of the *795 arrest, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. 4.

Glover by and Through Glover v. Donnell

878 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 2, 1995

If this were a correct characterization of the basis of her claim, then Donnell would clearly enjoy immunity, for the law in Mississippi remains that public officials who are sued merely because they exercise authority over … a particular governmental program or institution are entitled to qualified immunity.

Holguin v. Lopez

584 F. Supp. 2d 921 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2008

However, qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “Texas law of official immunity is substantially the same as federal qualified immunity law.” Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154, 1160 (5th Cir.1997).

Carter v. Rhode Island

68 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 18, 1995

had been "clearly established" long before 1990. … immunity from suit "if the right asserted by the plaintiff was `clearly established' at the time of its alleged violation . . .

Mladek v. Day

293 F. Supp. 2d 1297 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 20, 2003

Mladek has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thus overcoming the employee’s qualified immunity defense. I. Mr. Mladek’s Fourth Amendment Claims A. … Mladek overcomes his qualified immunity defense.

James Harold Peterson Paula Peterson v. City of Plymouth Michael Ridgley David Lindman Mark Bevins

60 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

If the officers did not have probable cause, a second inquiry is necessary to determine whether the officers are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. 6 The officers *474 are immune from liability if, in light of clearly … In light of this clearly established law, Officer Ridgley did not act in an objectively reasonable manner.

Galveston Independent School District v. Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, L.L.C.

324 S.W.3d 802 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Nov 24, 2010

Referencing Braun, the court held “that the establishment of the self funded group medical insurance program by [the school district] is a governmental function and that governmental immunity applies.” Id. at 779-80. … (“We do not see how H & H Sand’s allegation of unilateral modification establishes a waiver of governmental immunity under [section 271.152’s] requirement that a contract be ‘properly executed on behalf of the local governmental

Rhodes v. Torres

901 S.W.2d 794 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jun 22, 1995

The test under federal immunity law for such claims is as follows: “[W]e look to whether a reasonable official could have believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … Rhodes was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time he filed the motion to revoke her probation.

Mueller v. Rogers

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 10, 2009

The legal issues involved in that appeal- whether Aguilar violated clearly established consti- tutional protections — are identical to those govern- ing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity. … I therefore concur only in the majority’s conclusion that Detective Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity from Eric’s procedural due process claims because there was no clearly established law guiding Detective Rogers’

Chew v. Gates

744 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 31, 1990

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), grants qualified immunity to government officials performing discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The question of whether a government official has qualified immunity for an action turns on the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time