Case law

Allen v. Sakai

40 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 1994

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … established constitutional rights, defeating defendants’ claims to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Joann Cavalieri, as Plenary Guardian of the Estate of Steven Cavalieri, a Disabled Person v. Donald Shepard

321 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2003

asserting was not clearly established at the time of these events. … Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir.1992), was clearly established prior to 1998.

Jiménez-González v. Alvarez-Rubio

683 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 8, 2010

The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials from civil suits as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The second “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has two aspects. Id. One aspect focuses on “the clarity of the law at the time of the alleged civil rights violation.” Id.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ferguson v. City of Montgomery

969 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 18, 1997

Both Markham and McCullough claim they are immune from the Ferguson’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 individual capacity claim under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Therefore, the court finds that Markham and McCullough’s stop and search of Ferguson did not violate clearly established constitutional law and that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

(PC) Hardney v. Warren

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity 2 Alternatively, Kumeh lays claim to qualified immunity. … See Moonin, 868 F.3d 13 at 873-74 (denying qualified immunity because controlling Ninth Circuit authority established the 14 applicable general rules and cases from three other circuit courts and several district courts

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.

Hammel v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation

955 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Oregon · Jun 28, 2013

The 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 person … Day would be entitled to qualified immunity if the proper standard were deliberate indifference. b) Clearly Established To avoid qualified immunity at step two, plaintiffs must show that the asserted right was clearly established

Lee v. McCue

410 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 20, 2006

The Defense of Qualified Immunity: Waiver Defendants argue that the individual officers involved in the arrest are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs federal claims. … Defendants concede that “freedom from false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force are clearly established rights.” Br. at 6.

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. .

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 13, 1996

Does a volunteer physician establish a traditional doctor-patient relationship with a patient who comes to the clinic for care? … of the services or benefits of a volunteer by reason of any act of omission of a qualified volunteer in connection with the volunteer except as follows : * * * (4) Where the qualified volunteer negligently performs professional