Case law

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.

Collier v. Montgomery

569 F.3d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 20, 2009

The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.2 In Saucier v.

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.

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.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of "clearly established" law. … "clearly established" law.

Guerra v. Sutton

783 F.2d 1371 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 28, 1986

IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS A federal officer is entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of duty unless the officer’s conduct violated “clearly established” law. Harlow v. … We construe the district court’s dismissal of the FTCA claim as based on the same qualified immunity grounds.

Ralph Rogers v. Michael Fair

902 F.2d 140 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 30, 1990

We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. … concerning qualified immunity.

Turner v. Martire

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

Krogh v. Sweeney

195 F. Supp. 3d 1049 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 14, 2016

Sweeney argues that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … “[QJualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Mayberry v. Spicer

808 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 24, 1992

A Defendant has “qualified immunity unless Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the Defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood that … To prevail over a claim *567 of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Garvie v. Jackson, 845 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1988).

Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit

790 F. Supp. 2d 1034 · District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2011

The court, however, granted qualified immunity to MacPherson, stating that as of 2005, it was not clearly established that such use was unconstitutional. Id. at 833 . … Nor is Gee entitled to qualified immunity. The law as to extended detentions absent the indicia of probable cause was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Fisher v. Ahmed

153 N.E.3d 612 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2020

Even assuming that the facts and allegations of the complaint conclusively established that Ahmed is generally personally immune from liability, the complaint does not conclusively establish the inapplicability of an exception … Once established, a qualified privilege can be defeated by a clear and convincing showing that the communication was made with actual malice.

Karen Deloach Collins, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Benny Deloach v. Matthew Schantz

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Sep 26, 2023

See id. at 123 (1) (referring to “[t]he doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity”; Gilbert v. … established law” to that effect.

Clue v. Johnson

179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official's conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

Stanfield v. City of Lima

244 F. Supp. 3d 638 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 2017

Nevertheless, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The second inquiry, whether qualified immunity shields an officer from suit, depends on whether, at the time of the incident, “the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad

Allen v. Sakai

48 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

established constitutional rights, *1086 defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity.

Baylor College of Medicine v. Tate

77 S.W.3d 467 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

on the issue of qualified immunity”); Austin Indep. … Clearly, this section applies to, among other things, assertions of immunity from suit. It does not apply to assertions of immunity from liability. Hence, it is necessary to determine the nature of Baylor’s claim.

DEFOE EX REL. DEFOE v. Spiva

566 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 10, 2008

Qualified immunity does not shield public officials from liability for violating constitutional rights which are clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the court determines that the right is clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the public officials from liability. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Hermann v. Cook

240 F. Supp. 2d 626 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 22, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendants bear the burden of pleading the qualified immunity defense, but Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Defendants’ conduct violated a right so clearly established that a rea *630 sonable official would have