Case law

Scott Hanson v. William Shubert

968 F.3d 1014 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

SHUBERT 5 in part found that Shubert and Gonzalez could not be accorded qualified immunity as a matter of law, as genuine factual disputes remained as to whether they violated Hanson’s clearly … established rights.

Alva Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, Incorrectly Sued as "County of Los Angeles, a Public Entity Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, in Their Capacity as Officials Having Authority to Issue Personnel Rules for Employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District," Alva Gutierrez v. Porter De Dubovay John W. Bunnett and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants

838 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1988

Clearly Established in General 47 In Harlow v. … Qualified immunity is not a defense in such cases.

Colston v. Barnhart

130 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

Disputes over the application of the clearly-established-law prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry are separable from the merits of a controversy because “‘[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant … The semantic switch from discussing the typical qualified-immunity issue of “clearly established law” to a hypothetical (in Behrens) issue of “objective legal reasonableness” creates many of the problems that are now plaguing

Shiyan Jiang v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality

321 F. Supp. 3d 738 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 13, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 (quoting Hope v.

Blair v. Meade

76 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 16, 1996

Meade has qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis requires consideration of whether a right exists at all, i.e., whether plaintiff has asserted violation of a right, and whether that right was clearly established. • The motivation question

Mary Dearmon v. Garrett Burgess

388 F.3d 609 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 8, 2004

If so, we next "ask whether the right was clearly established." Id. … P. 41 and state law did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany

187 F.3d 452 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

not violate any clearly established constitutional guarantees; (4) the Sheriff defendants were entitled to discretionary function immunity under La. … Orders denying qualified immunity are based on an issue of law when: (1) they decide whether the legal right allegedly violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the challenged action; or (2) in cases

Gratz v. Bollinger

122 F. Supp. 2d 811 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2000

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … According to the Board, its actions must violate “clearly established legal principles” for its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated. (Id.) (emphasis in original).

Lytes v. Smith

11 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity 8 because even assuming the court finds a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … Furthermore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, the court need not address whether Plaintiffs asserted rights were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Salazar v. Bjork

85 N.M. 94 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1973

However, we do believe that the facts of this case give rise to a qualified immunity. … Ares, 29 N.M. 418 , 223 P. 766 (1924) have used the term “qualified privilege” where we have used the words “qualified immunity”.

Demster v. CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS

352 F. Supp. 2d 1165 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 18, 2005

Plaintiffs respond by arguing that qualified immunity does not apply in this case because the officers violated plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment Rights. … The court, however, finds that no clearly established right was violated by defendants’ conduct.

Linda K. Wood v. Steven C. Ostrander Neil Maloney

879 F.2d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1989

Qualified, Immunity State officials cannot be held liable for damages under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. Davis v. … away clearly established law.

Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont.

637 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity for the Individual Defendants [19] Qualified immunity shields the individual Commis- sioners from liability “insofar as their conduct d[id] not vio- late clearly established statutory or constitutional … We conclude that the right was clearly established, and conclude that the individual Commis- sioners are not entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Laquarius Gray v. Antonio Bostic

458 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity Principles “Qualified immunity offers a complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to evaluate whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Begay v. Hodel

730 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 24, 1990

On September 5, 1985, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the immunity of federal officials to claims where the plaintiffs rights are not clearly established. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials subject to damage awards when in violation of clearly established law).

Wilson v. City of Des Moines

160 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Jul 25, 2001

Katz, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (June 18, 2001) changed the landscape of qualified immunity. … Second, if a violation is established, courts are to determine whether the right was clearly established “on a more specific level than recognized by the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals.” Id. at 2155.

Chatman v. Ft. Lauderdale Police Department

688 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2016

to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … ANALYSIS On appeal, Deputy Wengert does not argue that Chatman’s right to be free from a prolonged dog bite after surrender was not clearly established under federal law.

Jenkins v. Cnty. of Washington

126 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 27, 2015

Defendants to believe that their acts did not violate any such clearly established rights. … a single case in this Circuit that rendered the rights in question clearly established.

Donovan v. City of Milwaukee

845 F. Supp. 1312 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 20, 1992

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants argue that they are protected from civil damages by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … This court does not agree with Donovan that Gamer creates clearly established law with respect to the present action.

Nelson v. Stalder

135 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 13, 2001

of the clearly established legal rules. … The court finds that Nelson has satisfied his burden of rebutting defendants’ qualified immunity defense by establishing that the defendants’ actions violated a law which the court finds was clearly established, and by establishing