Case law

Jensen v. Lane County

222 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2000

Robbins violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Robbins’ determination that probable cause existed to sign the certificate was reasonable under the circumstances and he did not violate clearly established law.”

Powers v. Northside Independent School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

State v. Keller-Bee

224 Md. App. 1 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 6, 2015

As will be discussed in detail infra, Maryland Courts have clearly established that a judge is immune from tort liability for judicial acts. … The Court continued: The determination of [w]hether a function qualifies for absolute immunity is made objectively and not subjectively.

Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold

873 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 18, 1989

), from which defendants claim qualified immunity. … Because Yalkut’s complaint alleges no actions by defendants that violated a clearly established constitutional right to due process, defendants are immune from suit.

Billie M. Ireland v. Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, and Richard D. Kuhn

113 F.3d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 26, 1997

Accordingly, because Meiers’s actions in swearing to the complaint were objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law, we hold that Meiers is entitled to qualified immunity under the Malley formulation. … immunity because his involvement was objectively reasonable and violated no clearly established law.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Suarez v. Derosier

241 So. 3d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2018

DeRosier submitted affidavits of his employees in support of absolute immunity. Prosecutors may have absolute immunity or qualified immunity depending upon their actions. … The trial court clearly noted absolute immunity was at issue and found that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. However, Defense counsel's failure to provide discovery, claiming immunity applied, prevented Mr.

Aspinwall v. Herrin

879 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 27, 1994

Herrin is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim because it was not clearly established in January of 1993 that a Georgia sheriff was bound by a county merit system. … Under the objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that Herrin’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law.

Taylor v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human resources

237 W. Va. 549 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Apr 14, 2016

Therefore, to the extent that petitioners have established sufficient evidence that the challenged employment actions were a violation of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or laws of which a reasonable … ’ claims are not barred by qualified immunity.

Love v. Harlem Irrigation District

245 Mont. 443 · Montana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1990

The Irrigation District is clearly a “governmental entity” within the meaning of § 2-9-111, MCA. … Harlem Irrigation District is clearly a governmental entity immune from suit under these definitions. *447 Under § 2-9-111(3), MCA, the commissioners individually are immune as members of a legislative body who are immune

Jones v. Chandrasuwan

76 F. Supp. 3d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2014

When subject to suit under § 1983, state and local officials may assert qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

Diane M. Wilson v. Ugo Formigoni, Carlos Deeb and Bruce Wilosinski

42 F.3d 1060 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1994

The court found, however, that it was not clearly established that Youngberg applied to those voluntary patients who were in reality committed involuntarily. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Cox v. Roskelley

359 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2004

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, without making any qualified immunity argument. … The second summary judgment motion asserted, for the first time, a qualified immunity defense.

Cousins v. Lockyer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 15, 2009

of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if “their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Hemmah v. City of Red Wing

592 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour 2 seek judgment as a matter of law on the ground that they are protected by qualified immunity. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary … Dist., 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir.2008), the Court concludes that Hemmah’s right was not clearly established in this case and that, consequently, Defendants Kuhlmann and Seymour are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mossey v. City of Galveston, Tex.

94 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 25, 2000

Plaintiff’s Claim of Unlawful Arrest Is Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. See Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992). … Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Is Not Barred by Qualified Immunity Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police.

Abiff v. Slaton

806 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 29, 1992

Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to these Defendants in their individual capacities. b) Qualified immunity Defendants have both (1) raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and (2) argued … In his reply, Plaintiff, in an effort to avoid these immunity defenses, asserts that “since Plaintiffs action is an official-capacity-lawsuit the Defendants qualified immunity defense is not available in this case.”

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Hollowell v. Gravett

703 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 19, 1988

In the alternative, Givens claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity in that he was not violating clearly established law. In Imbler v. … a defense of qualified immunity.

Lucas v. Swain County Board of Education

154 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Both affidavits established the Trust is not authorized and licensed to execute insurance contracts in this State and that it is not considered a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance. … Moreover, defendant established through three affidavits from Hale, Earley and Dunlap that the Trust is neither a licensed and authorized insurer, nor a qualified insurer as determined by the Department.