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.’”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Frank Zavaro v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, C.R. Homrighouse

970 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 31, 1992

We have previously articulated the standard for establishing a defense of qualified immunity. … Coughlin, 774 F.Supp. 189, 199-200 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (holding that a hearing officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for *1154 violating inmate’s clearly established right to an independent assessment of informants’ reliability

The Presbyterian Church (u.s.a.) v. The United States of America

870 F.2d 518 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 13, 1989

IV QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The district court held below that the individual INS agents named as defen *527 dants are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, federal officials are immune from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.

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

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.

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’

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.

Leachman v. Dretke

261 S.W.3d 297 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 10, 2008

After a government official asserts the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Therefore, as to Oncken’s qualified immunity defense, Leachman failed to show that her conduct violated any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right because he failed to state any constitutional claims in his

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.

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

Lisa Demaree v. John Krause

880 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 2018

“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 … established We move to the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the relevant judicial precedents at the time of the incident clearly gave notice that what happened here violated the Demaree family’s Fourth

Jodie Smook v. Minnehaha County

457 F.3d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

a violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The court further held that Banbury and Cheever were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was “clearly established for several years” prior to the time of the alleged violations that the Fourth Amendment prohibited

Harris Ex Rel. the Estate of Jkhary Craft v. Lasseigne

602 F. App'x 218 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2015

Lasseigne is entitled to qualified immunity if the court determines that his actions in shooting Craft “did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … It was clearly established at the time of the shooting that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots a suspect without “probable cause to believe that the No. 14-1033 Harris v.

Marin Piazza v. Aponte Roque

668 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1987

Defendants claim qualified immunity from damages on the theory that they did not violate clearly established law. … We therefore hold that defendants’ conduct violated plaintiffs’ clearly established due process rights, and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 2.