Case law

Hobart v. City of Stafford

784 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 29, 2011

Officials sued in their individual capacities are protected by qualified immunity unless the act violates a constitutional right clearly established at the time. Sanchez v. Swyden, 139 F.3d 464, 466-467 (5th Cir.1998). … To determine whether the plaintiff has overcome the presumption of qualified immunity, the Court first considers whether the plaintiff has proven a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Collins v.

Rieck v. Jensen

651 F.3d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 30, 2011

plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.” … In this case we may review the district court’s denial of Jensen’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because, as we shall see, Jensen’s entitlement to qualified immunity is based on undisputed facts

Cavanaugh v. Doherty

243 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1998

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … As such, accepting plaintiffs allegations as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss (see, McEvoy v Spencer, supra, at 95), we conclude that defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity.

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

439 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 20, 2006

Qualified immunity shields state actors from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … are not clearly established and deny them qualified immunity when they violate statutory rights that similarly are not clearly established.”); accord Tapley, 211 F.3d at 1216.

Giddings v. Joseph Coleman Center

473 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2007

If a constitutional violation is found, the second inquiry of qualified immunity is whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established enough that it “would be clear to a reasonable [state official] that his conduct … Clear to a Reasonable Officer The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test asks whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established enough at the time of the violation that it “would be clear to a

Hewitt v. Grabicki

596 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 1984

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonable competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … By defining the limits of qualified immunity essentially in objective terms, we provide no license to lawless conduct.

Harris v. Adams

410 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 2005

First, in determining whéther a constitutional right is clearly established, the court must first look to decisions of the U.S. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus protected from liability under § 1983 for his actions if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

Longoria v. State of Texas

473 F.3d 586 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 2006

DISCUSSION Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Officer Glass’s conduct thus did not violate clearly established law at the time of the attack and entitled her to qualified immunity. C.

Kathleene Schattilly v. Thomas Daugharty

656 F. App'x 123 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

she still cannot show that defendants violated clearly established rights. … Because Schattilly has not met her burden of showing that the asserted rights are clearly established, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Williams, Acevedo, and Daugharty for interviewing Bailey

Moss v. United States Secret Service

750 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 29, 2010

For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible … Federal Defendants argue that they have qualified immunity because Plaintiffs’ *1227 First Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time and the Federal Defendants’ conduct on that day was reasonable. (Fed.

Black v. Colunga

656 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2009

With respect to the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights by failing to protect him from attack. … Majette was reasonable and clearly established law did not indicate that it was objectively unreasonable, thus she is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

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.

Cummins v. Campbell

44 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 28, 1994

We hold that the Regents were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional law they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time they briefly suspended authority to show the film. … However, the district court agreed with Appellees that the law Appellees allegedly violated was not clearly established and granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity. A.

Williams v. Crosby

43 F. Supp. 3d 794 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 12, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Williams is a constitutional violation, it was not clearly established under Circuit precedent in September 2012. R. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

Knisley v. PIKE CTY. JOINT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DIST.

604 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 14, 2010

The defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Our Circuit’s clearly established case law on this issue put the school and its employees on notice that this search was unconstitutional, so defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity protection.

Kitt v. Bailey

676 F. App'x 350 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 14, 2017

Because McCreary invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Kitt must also negate that defense by pleading facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of … that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.

Nicholas v. Attorney General

584 Utah Adv. Rep. 13 · Utah Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2007

Because the provision is not clearly directed at remedying past gender discrimination, Hibbs does not apply. … Because neither the death of a daughter-in-law nor the assistance of a healthy adult child qualifies for family-care leave, Ms. Nicholas could only qualify for leave under the self-care provision of the FMLA. .

Whitaker v. Pima County

640 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, D. Arizona · Feb 17, 2009

Petropoulos is entitled to qualified immunity. Analysis of Qualified Immunity as to Maldonado Plaintiff does not dispute that Whitaker accelerated through the lot and hit Maldonado’s vehicle. … Maldonado is entitled to qualified immunity.

Laura Ann Juriss v. Paul McGowan and Russell Stanfield, Jointly and Severally

957 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 1992

In evaluating this argument, we examine whether the right McGowan allegedly violated was “clearly established in a particularized sense.” Cleveland-Perdue v. … We therefore reject his first argument for qualified immunity.

Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening

398 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 2005

The Supreme Court instructed that: 6 A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is `clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of … We stated in Buchholz, citing Drake, that "[i]f defendants prevail on [establishing that Buchholz has no cause of action], `it follows a fortiori' they are entitled to qualified immunity." Id. at 865.