Case law

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

737 So. 2d 494 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 10, 1999

In conjunction with the statewide program, the Legislature established a fund to clean sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. [2] The Act provides that the owners or operators of dry cleaning establishments, who could … CONCLUSION We find that the Legislature has clearly expressed its intent through the language of the statute as well as the structure and purpose of the Act to apply the immunity provisions found in subsections 376.3078(3

Doe v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

329 F. Supp. 3d 543 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 6, 2018

unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional right." … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate the right allegedly violated was "clearly established" at the time of the violation. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 236 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Bertolis v. Community Unit School District No. 7

283 Ill. App. 3d 874 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Oct 3, 1996

On July 20, 1994, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing as one ground for dismissal section 8—101 of the Tort Immunity Act, which establishes a one-year limitation period for actions commenced against local public … Although the Tort Immunity Act clearly establishes a one-year limitation period for actions filed against local public entities, in addition to following the statute of limitations applicable to an action, we must also follow

Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest

913 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 1996

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v. … Additionally, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields all three officers because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law at that time.

Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education

198 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 16, 2009

The panel concluded that their actions fell outside the protections of qualified immunity because they violated plaintiffs clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process. See Saucier v. … We begin with a brief overview of the TCA and the qualified immunity it confers.

Ramirez v. Holmes

921 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

“Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him … For Ramirez to defeat Holmes’s use of the qualified immunity shield, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right with respect to his claims.

Ayotte v. Barnhart

973 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 24, 2013

immunity because they violated clearly established law by refusing to address the increase in padlock assaults in 2010. … the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.”

Nicholas C. Omdahl, Roger C. Omdahl, and Linda Omdahl v. David E. Lindholm and Michael G. Stoffel

170 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 15, 1999

It is also the key dispute as to whether the Omdahls established the existence of an alleged constitutional violation and, thus, whether they can successfully refute the qualified immunity defense. … The qualified immunity defense places the burden of establishing the existence of the alleged constitutional violation on the Omdahls. See Clash, 77 F.3d at 1047 .

Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Chapman

814 F.3d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

The officers asserted that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the City asserted that plaintiff could not establish municipal liability. Id. at 1 (Page ID #97). … If, for example, “the [City] ratified [the officers’] misconduct which, though unconstitutional, was not in violation of clearly-established law,” a court could find the officers immune but the City liable. Baker v.

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Taylor Ex Rel. Estate of Mason v. Adams

221 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2000

her qualified immunity. … See, e.g., Layne, 119 S.Ct. at 1695 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity despite their unconstitutional conduct because of the lack of clearly established, preexisting law governing that conduct).

Pearson v. Shriners Hospitals

133 F.4th 433 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 2, 2025

immunity because the Former Employees have failed to cite a clearly established right. … Nonetheless, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity because the Former Employees’ claims against her are not based on clearly established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Losch v. Borough Of Parkesburg

736 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 14, 1984

Kleindienst, 729 F.2d 267, 273 (3d Cir.1984). 26 Qualified immunity protects a defendant who failed to observe a right or a legal standard that was not clearly established when the defendant acted. … On the other hand, as the Harlow Court concluded, "[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail," unless the defendant "claims extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc.

903 F. Supp. 1162 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 4, 1995

To defeat defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must establish that defendant state officers deprived plaintiff Thomas Lee of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right while acting under … Although the third right was not clearly established at the time of commission, a municipality is not entitled to qualified immunity as is an individual state defendant. See Garner v.

Bingue v. Prunchak

512 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2008

Harris, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 1774 n. 2, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (“Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability _’ Thus, ... an order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

220 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that questions of fact exist as to whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity from liability provided by Social Services Law § 419. … Here, the X rays were clearly not medically indicated.

David L. McCartney, M.D. Darryl Williams, M.D. And Dorma Kohler v. Donald R. May, M.D.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … (footnote: 4) Appellants have failed to conclusively establish McCartney and Williams’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

Levine v. Roebuck

550 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 4, 2008

The court then granted Youngs qualified immunity because “the law of the Eighth Circuit was not clearly established at the time of [her] actions.” In Saucier v. … But that proposition was not clearly established by those cases, or by any other.