Case law

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.

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.

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.

Passatempo v. McMenimen

458 Mass. 1007 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 14, 2010

The court did not expressly address the qualified immunity issue. Id. The defendant appealed. Id. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the qualified immunity issue as to the first set of claims. 7 Id. at 303-304 . … He may, as we twice clearly indicated in McMenimen I, pursue the immunity issues as a matter of right in *1010 his direct appeal. Id. at 187 & 193 n.13, citing Littles, supra at 880 .

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.

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.

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.

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

Dinsdale v. Commonwealth

424 Mass. 176 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 3, 1997

Government officials are normally protected only by a qualified immunity, and those officials seeking an absolute exemption from personal liability must show that public policy requires an immunity of that scope. … In Chicopee Lions Club, supra at 251, we established that the scope of prosecutorial immunity under G. L. c. 12 is “at least as broad as under § 1983.” See Rodriques v.

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

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.

Bernier v. Trump

299 F. Supp. 3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The court held: Plaintiff's Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim on the second "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

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.

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.