Case law

Rodriguez v. State

218 Md. App. 573 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 27, 2014

If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice. 135 Md. App. at 719 (emphasis added). … Moreover, the Court held that, because the trustees “were clearly not public officials,” it was plain that “the concept of qualified public official immunity is inapplicable to their actions in connection with the judicial

Moya v. Schollenbarger

465 F.3d 444 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

As to the first prong of qualified immunity — whether Defendants violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[],” Harlow v. … First Amendment rights As to the first prong of a qualified immunity analysis, M r. M oya’s allegations clearly implicate First Amendment rights.

Ealum v. Schirard

46 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

At the summary judgment stage, if the record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, clearly demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity is not available. … . § 242 , like “clearly established” requirement in qualified immunity analysis, is not dependent upon “fundamentally similar” prior case law).

Brown v. Gilmore

278 F.3d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated … Because, "[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity."

Exford v. City of Montgomery

887 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 24, 2012

United States, 457 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (“In the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for *1222 qualified immunity purposes … the relevant law clearly enough to defeat qualified immunity.

Terrell v. Allgrunn

114 F.4th 428 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 2024

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. … When evaluating whether [Allgrunn] violated clearly es- tablished law for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis, we consider whether the law was clearly established at the time of the defendant

Arnold v. McClain

926 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 21, 1991

to good faith or qualified immunity for his actions. 2. … Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of clearly established law by Defendant or the requisite nexus to his actions.

Wright v. Butts

953 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1996

The state defendants contend that, in their individual capacities, they are immune from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Daniel F. Sullivan v. Frederick R. Carrick

888 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

This court must look to the “ ‘objective reasonableness of [the defendant’s] conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law,’ to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.” Unwin v. … The qualifying test for qualified immunity is in two parts: whether (1) Sullivan’s constitutional rights were violated; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established such that Carrick would have known that his conduct

Hart v. Artus

District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 2021

Next, Plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply to any of the defendants, since the constitutional rights which Plaintiffs allege were violated were all clearly established, such that a reasonable defendant … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Onofre T. Serrano v. S.W. Francis

345 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 26, 2003

Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, we now move to our analysis of qualified immunity. 3.

Ross v. State of Alabama

15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 22, 1998

Pleading with specificity is particularly important where, as here, a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, and the court must decide whether the conduct complained of violates a “clearly established” constitutional … As Defendants correctly note, the Supreme Court has stated that, “[ujnless the plaintiff's allegation states a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Wadith Nader v. City of Papillion

917 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

On that claim, the district court found: (1) Svajgl and Iversen were entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Hessig was entitled to either absolute immunity or qualified immunity; (3) Lyons and Polikov were entitled to qualified … “An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Zahra v. Town of Southold

48 F.3d 674 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 21, 1995

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 rights of which … See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 (“The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a ‘clearly established right’ to the permits at issue.”); see also Amsden

Danley v. Allen

540 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

To 8 overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show a constitutional or statutory violation and also that the right violated was clearly established at the … Ct. at 1085. 18  Having established a constitutional violation, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis usually is to determine whether the right was clearly

Dear v. City of Irving

902 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 16, 1995

“This immunity, variously known as governmental, official, quasi-judicial or qualified immunity, evolved out of a public policy that encourages public officers to carry out their duties without fear of personal liability. … Under federal law, the defense of qualified immunity applies only if the officer’s actions involved the exercise of discretionary duties. See Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d 555, 556 (5th Cir.1990).

Jackson County Drain Commissioner v. Village of Stockbridge

270 Mich. App. 273 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

Drains extending into more than 1 county or affecting lands in more than 1 county, shall be established and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this act regulating the establishment and construction of drains … Instead, the Court clearly stated that MCL 691.1407 did not permit a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity. Pohutski, supra at 678-679 . In doing so, the Court relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

James E. Duncan, Cross-Appellee v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck, Cross-Appellants, Highland Coal & Chemical Corporation

844 F.2d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 25, 1988

Harlow made clear that this is an objective test, and that if the right was not clearly established, the defendant is entitled to immunity, and the court should dismiss the case without further discovery. 6 Yet the underlying … Clearly, the important policy reasons for granting immunity from suit to government officials would not extend to private parties, who can be adequately protected from liability by merely establishing an affirmative good

Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration

968 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 16, 2012

Chamizo finally argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish any violation of a clearly established constitutional right. (Id. at 5-15.) … In the Eleventh Circuit, “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Andrew M. Rohman v. New York City Transit Authority (Nycta), Carmen J. Bianco

215 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 26, 2000

Resolution of those issues is not required to determine whether Bianco was entitled to qualified immunity because, if he is, immunity protects him irrespective of whether Rohman can establish the elements of malicious prosecution … clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the defendant’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.