Case law

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP.

639 So. 2d 730 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Sep 15, 1994

immunity, the language of the statute would have clearly reflected this intent." … Employing the former approach and tailoring the definition to fit the qualified immunity provision, courts have found that lack of malice or good faith can be proven by establishing a reasonable basis for the conduct.

Dehne v. City of Reno

222 F. App'x 560 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2007

In this appeal, Dehne objects to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Griffin. 1 Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity for acts that do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of … If an official “could have believed, ‘reasonably but mistakenly ... that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right,’ ” then qualified immunity applies. Skoog v.

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.

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.

74 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 1994

Clearly Established Constitutional Injury In reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has taught that the first inquiry is whether the plaintiff … at all' before reaching the possibly unnecessary question of whether the plaintiff asserted a violation of a "clearly established' right."). 5  To be clearly established, the

Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty.

246 Md. App. 630 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 1, 2020

The Supreme Court has stated that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The court found that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Turturro v. City of New York

77 A.D.3d 732 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 12, 2010

The City contended, among other things, that it was entitled to qualified immunity for highway planning decisions made after adequate studies. … While its summary judgment motion was pending, the City made a separate motion, inter alia, for leave to amend its answer to add a defense of qualified immunity.

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established

Kitchen Ex Rel. the Estate of Kitchen v. Dallas County

759 F.3d 468 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 17, 2014

earliest possible stage in litigation.’” 8 The two-part inquiry into qualified immunity is first “whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged,” and second “whether the right was clearly established … As a general matter, moreover, this rule constituted clearly established law for the purposes of qualified immunity in this case.

Kentucky v. Young

51 F. App'x 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2002

A state actor who is sued in his or her individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Consequently, we hold that Detective Burns is not entitled to qualified immunity because her actions violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Sybil Hernandez v. Brett Jarman

340 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2003

In this case, if Hernandez's allegations fail to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Jarman and Tarrell will be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. See Saucier v. … Accordingly, Jarman is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct because the facts as alleged by Hernandez fail to state a violation of Six Feathers's clearly established constitutional rights.

Michael-Ryan Kruger v. State of Nebraska

820 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 7, 2016

sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.... … Kruger’s proclaimed duty is not clearly established. There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here.

Terry Summers v. Simon Leis, Sheriff

368 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 9, 2004

qualified immunity.” … of qualified immunity.

Berman Enterprises, Inc. v. Jorling

3 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 24, 1993

When Jorling and Marsh acted, the law governing their conduct was not “clearly established”; therefore, both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from the claims against them in their individual capacities. … Marsh is more clearly entitled to qualified immunity than Jorling, for his actions followed a more clearly defined statutory path.

Johnson v. City of Ecorse

137 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 29, 2001

Qualified Immunity Officers Smith and Herring plead the defense of qualified immunity. … The standard for that defense is that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from civil damages, provided their conduct did not violate a clearly-established

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that "[t]he Supreme Court's qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … These cases establish no law clearly and fail to overcome defendants' qualified immunity. 70 As I stated earlier, see supra, until the Supreme Court's decision in Brower, the intentional, successful use of physical force-

District Council 20, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. District of Columbia

150 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2001

For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is “clearly established” if “the contours of that right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … immunity as to these claims which have not been clearly established in this or any other circuit.

Richard H. Hatch, Jr. v. Department for Children, Youth and Their Families (State of Rhode Island), Steven Brown and Mary McKee Proposed

274 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2001

In Frazier , we upheld a grant of qualified immunity to social workers who had played a role in a family dispute. … In answering this question, it is important to understand the parameters of the qualified immunity defense.

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.