Case law

Madsen v. Borthick

658 P.2d 627 · Utah Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1983

We are unwilling to read this artificial distinction into the Governmental Immunity Act in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative purpose to that effect. We find none. … of governmental immunity established in the Governmental Immunity Act. 10 The 1978 amendment to the Governmental Immunity Act, in § 63-30-4, establishes a new statutory standard for official immunity.

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.

Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz

329 P.3d 214 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2014

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claim against all of the defendants, finding no violation of a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … or qualified immunity” grounds.

Vines v. Howard

676 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1987

To be protected by qualified immunity, an official must establish that he acted in good faith, without intending to violate any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. … The constitutional right at issue must be clearly established. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 .

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.

Estrada ex rel. Estate of Estrada v. Cook

166 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2015

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.”

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.

Davis v. Lester

156 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 26, 2001

“Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … However, no such express rule is necessary to deny qualified immunity. Id. The standards in McMillian, Norman, and Benjamin were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.

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.

(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

Ealum v. Schirard

46 F. App'x 587 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 30, 2002

At the summary judgment stage, if the record, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, clearly demonstrates the violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity is not available. … . § 242 , like “clearly established” requirement in qualified immunity analysis, is not dependent upon “fundamentally similar” prior case law).

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

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.

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

Brown v. Gilmore

278 F.3d 362 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 2002

Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated … Because, "[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquires concerning qualified immunity."

Ridgeview Partners, LLC v. Entwistle

354 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2005

Sussman argues for qualified immunity protection. … When a public official violates no clearly established constitutional right and acts in all times in good faith and conformance with clearly established law, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. Anderson v.