Case law

Zuchel v. Spinharney

890 F.2d 273 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 27, 1989

Runner, 854 F.2d 374 (10th Cir.1988): 8 Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from personal liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person … Id. 12 Officer Spinharney concedes that Zuchel's right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established right. Opening Brief of Appellant at 24.

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

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls

46 F.4th 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

To receive qualified immunity, an official “must establish that he or she acted within the scope of discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Hardigree v. … Robinson’s clearly established rights. A right is clearly established when it is “suffi- ciently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Ernest Onderik v. Joe P. Morgan

897 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Because the defendants did not violate clearly established federal law or knowingly anticipate that their conduct would give rise to constitutional claims, defendants retain the protections of qualified immunity. … To lose the protections of qualified immunity, the federal officials must have violated clearly established law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.

Kirby v. County of Fresno

242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

Marx v. Gumbinner

716 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 19, 1989

Qualified Immunity Even if probable cause did not exist, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because those Defendants reasonably believed such probable cause existed. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s arrest. C.

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

Tucker v. Atwater

815 S.E.2d 34 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Jun 4, 2018

The Court of Appeals held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established law. … We don't reach that question here because the absence of clearly established law entitles the school officials to qualified immunity. But there's no reason why the next such case should face the same problem.

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Starr v. Warden, et al.

2006 DNH 110 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2006

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged "■'conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

CUEBAS v. Davila

618 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 31, 2009

Defendant Burgos’s right to qualified immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the first step to ascertain if Burgos is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations claim a violation of clearly established law.

Campbell v. Sumner

587 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jun 11, 1984

Prison officials have qualified immunity from monetary liability under *380 § 1983. Procunier v. Navarette, supra, 434 U.S. at 561 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 . … Not only was the law not clearly established in June of 1982, when the envelope from the FBI arrived at the prison, it still isn’t clearly established in the Ninth Circuit.

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.

Bernstein v. United States

990 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 10, 1997

Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate, clearly established statutory or constitutional

King v. Ambs

519 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Patino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

207 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2016

“[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which, a reasonable … whether the constitutional right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case.

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2000

provided qualified immunity from such a suit. … if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Cronn v. Buffington

150 F.3d 538 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1998

The district court granted qualified immunity to all Defendants. … Because there was no “clearly established” right to be free from seizure under such a warrant, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants based on the defense of qualified immunity