Case law

Apffel v. Huddleston

50 F. Supp. 2d 1129 · District Court, D. Utah · May 27, 1999

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity spares Defendants the burden of proceeding with the litigation unless Plaintiff can show that Defendants violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Gonzalez v. Romanisko

744 F. Supp. 95 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1990

The Defendant, Mastruzzo, here moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on allegations of qualified immunity and insufficiency of the evidence. … The principles of qualified immunity that we have reaffirmed today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly estab *98 lished principles

Lopez v. San Luis Valley, Board of Cooperative Educational Services

977 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 17, 1997

the clearly established law. … Therefore, defendants Espinoza and Henderson did not violate any “clearly established” law in 1994 and 1995, and they are entitled to summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity.

Lawrence v. United States

340 F.3d 952 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity 8 A district court's decision to grant summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Dep't, 249 F.3d 921 , 925 (9th Cir.2001). … If the right is not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Nash v. Duncan Park Commission

304 Mich. App. 599 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2014

THE INDENTURE’S USE OF TRUST LANGUAGE Moreover, the document’s language clearly contemplates the establishment of a trust. “[I]t requires no particular form of words to create a trust.” … Although not argued by defendants, we have considered whether the Commission is a “board,” thereby qualifying as immune under MCL 691.1401(e).

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

286 Kan. 809 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Aug 1, 2008

A school gymnasium has been held to be *814 qualified “public property” for the purposes of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 75-6104(o), and its use for basketball practice was clearly a recreational use. … Curiously, Jackson *821 I makes that point quite clearly.

Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police Department

139 F. Supp. 3d 760 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 14, 2015

These material disagreements preclude the application of qualified immunity to the officers at this juncture. The right to be free from excessive force during an arrest is a clearly established constitutional right. … Our Court of Appeals has explained that, in circumstances where qualified immunity is invoked, if there is a “genuine question of material fact regarding ‘[w]hether the conduct allegedly violative of [such a clearly established

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Avilés v. Figueroa

195 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 16, 2016

Qualified Immunity Lastly, this Court how moves to consider whether Co-Defendant Martinez-Ortiz is protected by qualified immunity. The qualified immunity doctrine offers public officials complete immunity from suit. … In order to *449 grant qualified immunity, the First Circuit has clearly laid out a two-step process in which the court must engage: The two-step procedure for assessing a plea of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss

Blackshear v. City of Miami Beach

799 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 26, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “[Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant Wyatt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity. 24 Therefore, the complaint states

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

Hill v. Walsh

884 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 2018

Because the law on the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was not clearly established at the time of the incident, we uphold the district court's entry of judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court also noted that even if the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, they had a "strong case" that they were entitled to qualified immunity because "there is no clearly established Supreme

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).

Susan Vaughn v. Greene County, AR

438 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2006

Individual Liability of Sheriff Langston “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

Porterfield v. Lott

156 F.3d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 22, 1998

not violate clearly established rights of which a reason- able person would have known." … Officials lose the protection of the immunity if they vio- late a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that an objectively reasonable

Burton v. Richmond

370 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 2, 2004

Because we determine that there was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 5 Governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 when performing discretionary functions unless they violate clearly established law in executing their duties. Burton I, 276 F.3d at 976 .

Turturro ex rel. Turturro v. City of New York

28 N.Y.3d 469 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2016

In the specific proprietary field of roadway safety, a municipality is afforded “a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Friedman, 67 NY2d at *480 283 ). 1 The qualified nature of … This qualified immunity, which applies in a specific field of proprietary functions, is separate from the governmental function immunity defense, which applies only to governmental functions, as explained.

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.