Case law

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

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.

Winfield v. G.L. Bass

106 F.3d 525 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 31, 1997

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 … No clearly established law having been violated, the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 5 IV.

Ex Parte Turner

840 So. 2d 132 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 21, 2002

and qualified immunity. … Turner's affidavit provides uncontroverted sworn statements that sufficiently establish qualified immunity from the § 1983 action.

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

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.

Ex parte Ingram

229 So. 3d 220 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 24, 2017

The same result is reached in federal qualified-immunity analysis by the requirement that the right the defendant is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established,” by which the federal cases mean not only that the … Saucier further instructs that ‘[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.’ Id. (emphasis added).”

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

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.

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

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).

Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District 512

316 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 18, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under certain circumstances, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from individual liability in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Harlow v. … At the very least, the law was not clearly established that plaintiffs conduct was constitutionally protected, thus entitling defendants Krawitz and Burgat to qualified immunity on this basis as well.

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.

State v. Copple

224 Neb. 672 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1987

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and unconstitutionality must be clearly established before this court is authorized to declare it void. State v. Neal, 187 Neb. 413, 416 , 191 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1971). … A trial court’s finding that a prima facie case has been established concerning existence of a conspiracy will be upheld unless such finding is clearly erroneous. Cf. United States v.

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”.

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.

Ryncarz v. Eikenberry

824 F. Supp. 1493 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 1993

Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions! … Accordingly, defendants Bailey and Robertson are entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

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.

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.