Case law

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

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls

46 F.4th 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

To receive qualified immunity, an official “must establish that he or she acted within the scope of discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Hardigree v. … Robinson’s clearly established rights. A right is clearly established when it is “suffi- ciently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Annie Roberto v. Ricardo J. Bordallo and David L.G. Shimizu

839 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 11, 1988

The district court agreed that her forced resignation violated her clearly established statutory rights and that qualified immunity did not protect the appellants. … There is no question that if the plaintiff clearly was a classified employee, the appellants’ actions violated her well-established rights and a qualified immunity claim is of no avail.

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 would … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.

Marx v. Gumbinner

716 F. Supp. 1434 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 19, 1989

Qualified Immunity Even if probable cause did not exist, Defendants are still entitled to qualified immunity because those Defendants reasonably believed such probable cause existed. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s arrest. C.

Kirby v. County of Fresno

242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police Department

139 F. Supp. 3d 760 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 14, 2015

These material disagreements preclude the application of qualified immunity to the officers at this juncture. The right to be free from excessive force during an arrest is a clearly established constitutional right. … Our Court of Appeals has explained that, in circumstances where qualified immunity is invoked, if there is a “genuine question of material fact regarding ‘[w]hether the conduct allegedly violative of [such a clearly established

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

865 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1989

MATHIS’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (RACE DISCRIMINATION) Mathis finally contends that he is immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity set forth in Harlow v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Starr v. Warden, et al.

2006 DNH 110 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 27, 2006

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged "■'conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Patricia Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson

205 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

CUEBAS v. Davila

618 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 31, 2009

Defendant Burgos’s right to qualified immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the first step to ascertain if Burgos is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations claim a violation of clearly established law.

Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell, State Trooper Mark Furlone and State Trooper John Ellsworth, Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell

863 F.2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

clearly established law and thus were not qualifiedly immune. … A court must look to the "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law," to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

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.

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.

Bernstein v. United States

990 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 10, 1997

Qualified Immunity. … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate, clearly established statutory or constitutional

King v. Ambs

519 F.3d 607 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, “[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Florida Country Clubs, Inc. v. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A.

98 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2000

provided qualified immunity from such a suit. … if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Timberlake by Timberlake v. Benton

786 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 29, 1992

Qualified Immunity Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from liability in lawsuits brought under § 1983. Immunity, based upon an objective reasonableness standard, was established in Harlow v. … was so clearly in violation of constitutional law that he is unprotected by qualified immunity.