Case law

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

Bankston v. Pass Road Tire Center, Inc.

611 So. 2d 998 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

Officers, like Rogers and Smith, are not absolutely immune from liability for their discretionary actions; they can be held liable for their discretionary actions if their conduct does violate a clearly established constitutional … Even if the impoundment was at their own discretion, they would enjoy a qualified immunity.

S&M Brands, Inc. v. Stein

2018 NCBC 26 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 2, 2018

Plaintiff established an Escrow Fund and has made yearly payments into its Escrow Fund since the NC Qualifying Statute was enacted in 1999. … its immunity from suit.”

Joseph v. Donahue

392 F. Supp. 3d 973 · District Court, D. Maine · May 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action *984 unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts shown by the plaintiff establish "(1) that a plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, and (2) those rights were so clearly established at the

Ager v. Office of Director of Regulation

1 Am. Tribal Law 380 · Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court · Oct 30, 1997

It is well established that Indian tribes possess the “common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers”, Santa Clara, Pueblo v. … 502 of Article V of M.T.O. 95-4 specifies that nothing in the ordinance establishing the Gaming Disputes Court “shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the Tribe, the Authority or the Tribe’s other enterprises

Meadours Ex Rel. Estate of Meadours v. Ermel

483 F.3d 417 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 3, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability "‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which … Second, we determine whether the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable in light of "clearly established" law at the time of the alleged violation. Goodson v.

Leopardi v. Township of Maple Shade

363 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 2003

Potentially liable parties, however, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Qualified immunity claims involve a two-step analysis.

Brassell v. Turner

468 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 15, 2006

A two-step approach is used to evaluate qualified immunity claims. … If the plaintiffs allegations could make out a constitutional violation, the court then asks “whether the right was clearly established — that is, whether ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Greenaway v. County of Nassau

97 F. Supp. 3d 225 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Garcia, 43 F.Supp.3d at 289 . … .-, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866 , 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (noting that courts evaluating qualified immunity must “draw[] inferences in favor of the nonmovant, even when ... a court decides only the clearly-established prong of the

Prager v. LaFaver

103 F. Supp. 2d 1278 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 16, 2000

Once a defendant 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. … Therefore, the issue before the court is whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation. B.

Trey Sims v. Kenneth Labowitz

877 F.3d 171 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 5, 2017

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

517 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity, or “good faith” immunity, is an affirmative defense that a defendant state official may raise. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … Even if the Court found that Graduate Faculty status constitutes a protected property interest, this interest is not clearly established.

Schwab v. Wood

767 F. Supp. 574 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 12, 1991

Qualified Immunity A. … Standard for Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which

City of Brooksville v. Warner

533 S.W.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 17, 2017

Because the safe driving of a police vehicle is a ministerial act, Hause is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs negligent driving claim. … For this reason, and to ensure that governmental officials will exercise discretion when needed, our law allows qualified immunity from suit on the performance of discretionary acts.

Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

806 F.3d 268 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 10, 2015

immunity. 10 “[Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a … We therefore must determine whether Faul is entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that he did not violate clearly established law.

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.

FTW REVOCABLE TRUST v. Young

151 P.3d 811 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2007

immunity because there exists no law giving Linda a clearly-established right to renew Stephen's mooring permit. … question of qualified immunity.

Causey v. Parish of Tangipahoa

167 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 12, 2001

As stated above, the question of whether a public official is covered by qualified immunity entails a two step inquiry. First, the court must find that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … These claims are clearly insufficient to overcome Sergeant Price’s defense of qualified immunity and the Court shall deal with the allegations in summary fashion.

Damaris Rivera-Ruiz v. Leonardo Gonzalez-Rivera, Etc.

983 F.2d 332 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 5, 1993

Qualified Immunity Appellees’ suggest that as government officials, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The qualified immunity defense does not rescue appellees in this case. … However, government officials are not entitled to this defense if they violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known. Harlow v.

Ortiz v. Kazimer

811 F.3d 848 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 2016

This use of force was clearly established as excessive before 2010. … His lack of action on this record establishes a cognizable claim that he violated Juan’s clearly established constitutional rights. State-law claims.