Case law

OONA R.-S. BY KATE S. v. Santa Rosa City Schools

890 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, N.D. California · May 2, 1995

If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a qualified immunity claim at this stage in a section 1983 action, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege the deprivation of a clearly established right secured by federal statutory or constitutional law.

Wilson v. Layne

110 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 11, 1997

Furthermore, the district court refused to accept the officers’ alternative argument that, at a minimum, they were entitled to qualified immunity because in April 1992, the law was not clearly established that permitting … 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

Grignano v. City of Milford

106 Conn. App. 648 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 1, 2008

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … Under the common law, “a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts. . . .

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.

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

Hickey v. Zezulka

177 Mich. App. 606 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1989

good faith or qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim pursuant to 42 USC 1983. … Moreover, even if the qualified immunity defense had been pled by Zezulka, qualified immunity is not available in this case because Zezulka was not performing a discretionary act.

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.

Malik Muntaqim, Adc No. 088633 v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit, Arkansas Division of Correction

2024 Ark. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Sep 25, 2024

in their individual are entitled to qualified immunity. … Under this analysis, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate (1) the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established

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.

Wood v. Sunn

865 F.2d 982 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The Supreme Court decided an entirely different issue in this case: precisely what must be “clearly established” for a law enforcement officer to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity in the context … of a warrant-less search. 4 The Supreme Court held that qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that the search was justified, in light of clearly established law and the information

Francisco Entila Et Al., Appellants, v. Gerald Cook Et Al., Respondents

190 Wash. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 5, 2015

Given the legislative policy favoring third-party actions, one would expect any expansion of immunity to be clearly stated. Entila relies on Olson v. … To establish immunity, Cook must show that he was doing work for Boeing at the time of the accident.

Estate of Walter v. Corr. Healthcare Cos.

323 F. Supp. 3d 1199 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 29, 2018

Traditional Liability & Qualified Immunity The Command Staff Defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because, they say, no clearly established law put them on notice of their duty to do more than they did … "Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

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.

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.

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.

Mckinney v. Duplain

463 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2006

, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established . . . ." … claims for which he asserted qualified immunity."