Case law

DEL VALLE GROUP v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority

756 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 22, 2010

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to this claim, the Individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is clearly applicable, as the court is answering an open question of law to which there is no clearly established precedent.

Chishty v. TEXAS DEPT. OF AGING AND DISABILITY

562 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 4, 2006

"The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry." Id. "First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right." Id. (citation omitted). … "Even if the government official's conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable." Id. (citation omitted).

Cropper v. United States

81 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Nov 22, 1948

The evidence in the case clearly established plaintiff's right to recover for the injuries suffered by him, if this court has jurisdiction of the suit. … The evidence also clearly shows that Robbins had deviated from the instructions given him in the morning when he left the Army Base with the staff car.

Burchett v. Cheek

637 F. Supp. 1249 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 18, 1985

Cheek has raised a qualified immunity defense in an effort to insulate himself in his individual capacity from liability for the damages awarded by the jury. … Under the circumstances, he should have known the clearly established law applicable to his appointment of an assistant. He has failed to make out a qualified immunity defense.

Lopez-Sanchez v. Vergara-Agostini

419 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory authority or … The defendants are not entitled to prevail on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity since it was clearly established in 2002 that discharging someone based upon political affiliation from a position other than trust

Davidson v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.

359 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2005

In response, Defendants raise a claim of qualified immunity. … “The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

447 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 11, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity: government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) a similarly

Thomsen v. Ross

368 F. Supp. 2d 961 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 11, 2005

Qualified Immunity Summary judgment, is appropriate when a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for official acts if their conduct “doés not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Rambo v. Morehouse Parish School Board

37 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 19, 1999

The argument for qualified immunity is similarly flaccid. … But that has nothing to do with qualified immunity. As defendants were not immune from the initial suit, they cannot be qualifiedly immune from enforcement of the order. 3.

Brown v. Short

729 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2010

Qualified immunity “shields 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 have known … in light of clearly established law.

Callaway v. Okmulgee School District 1

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2025

clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” … Plaintiff may show the law to be “clearly established” by citing an on-point Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision, or by showing “the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law

Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa

240 F. Supp. 2d 941 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Nov 20, 2002

Qualified Immunity Clark and Newby raise the defense of qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit has just recently again summarized the qualified immunity analysis: ... … A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity when his “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” [Sexton v.

Stone v. City of Grand Junction, Tenn.

765 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 31, 2011

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights.” Bishop v. … (2) the right was clearly established.”

H.Y. Ex Rel. K.Y. v. Russell County Board of Education

490 F. Supp. 2d 1174 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 16, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials (and the other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established … “[T]he law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose.” Wilson v.

Abel v. Auglaize County Highway Department

276 F. Supp. 2d 724 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 4, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, the “plaintiff is obliged to present facts which if true would constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Dominque v.

Taylor v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

661 F. Supp. 1333 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 19, 1986

The court concludes that Bowman and Hall are shielded from liability by qualified good faith immunity. … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that defendants’ conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id.

Jones v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2021

Alternatively, Defendants argue that clearly established law did not provide Coward and Evans with notice that their actions would qualify as a seizure, so Coward and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity. … Even assuming he did, however, this seizure did not violate clearly established rights, so Coward is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Jones’s unlawful seizure claims.

Cordova v. New Mexico

283 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 6, 2017

Finally, Defendants claim that qualified immunity shields them from liability. … It is clearly established that the denial of qualifying leave and the termination of employment in relation to an FMLA leave request is a violation of the law. See Twigg v.

Serrano v. Guevara

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 2018

This holding is based on the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether a constitutional violation was alleged—and not the second— whether the right was clearly established at the time of violation. … The qualified immunity defense focuses instead on whether the official defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. (emphasis in original)); Fields II, 740 F.3d at 1114.

Burnell v. Williams

997 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 6, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants Morvai and Coleman say they enjoy qualified immunity. In Monell v. … V Alternatively, Defendants Morvai and Coleman say they enjoy qualified immunity.