Case law

Walsingham v. Dockery

671 So. 2d 166 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 21, 1996

concerned whether certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law. … Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1563 (11th Cir.1994) ("the issue of a government official's qualified immunity from suit presents a question of law"). The test for qualified immunity was established in Harlow v.

Von Derhaar v. Stalbert

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

“[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff's version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry demands plaintiff demonstrate there was a clearly established right at the time of the challenged action.

Yates v. Stalder

217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

United States v. Murdock

284 U.S. 141 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 23, 1931

, and also that the lack of state power to give witnesses protection against federal prosecution does not defeat a. state immunity statute. … The principle established is that full and complete immunity against prosecution by the government compelling the witness, to answer is equivalent to the protection furnished by the rule agáinst compulsory self-incrimination

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Jonathan v. Nally

178 Vt. 222 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 22, 2005

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that they had not violated any clearly established federal law or state rights. … Furthermore, once the issue was raised, Sprague had the burden to rebut the qualified immunity defense “by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.

(PC) King v. Biter

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2021

Qualified Immunity 5 Qualified immunity applies when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established 6 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of 17 Roseville, 882 F.3d 843, 856-57 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that Ninth Circuit precedent is sufficient to 18 meet the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity); Hamby v.

Jones v. Muniz

349 F. Supp. 3d 377 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 21, 2018

Qualified immunity generally protects government officials when performing discretionary functions, *383 such as arrests, "from liability for civil damages" if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law, asking whether the right at issue was "clearly established in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must

Nina J. Lechiara v. Gary M. Gaskins Kenneth L. Gorby Stephen R. Dolly Geraldine Floyd

866 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 23, 1989

Second, each of the defendants was immune from Sec. 1983 liability for his actions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (magistrates' judicial immunity); Imbler v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1982) (state trooper's qualified immunity for actions not violative of clearly established rights of which reasonable person would know). 3 For the above reasons the district court's dismissal

Breault v. CHAIRMAN OF BD, FIRE COMMR. OF SPRINGFIELD

401 Mass. 26 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Oct 13, 1987

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (principle of qualified immunity allows defendant to seek summary judgment on ground that, on "clearly established principles [of law]," he could have reasonably believed his acts to be … established rule of immunity.

Halterman

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 18, 2026

immunity analysis, while the latter, “arguable probable cause,” goes to the “clearly established prong” of the qualified immunity analysis. … to qualified immunity.”

Woodyard v. Alabama Department of Corrections

700 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2017

rights and (2) that those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … Because Woodyard must establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Leggett violated his constitutional rights before he can possibly overcome the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we address the district

James Tomer v. Daryl Gates, Jerry Bova, Luis Lopez, Raymond Lombardo, Michael Ranshaw, and the City of Los Angeles

811 F.2d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), established the rule that denial of a qualified immunity defense, like the denial of absolute immunity, is immediately appealable as a final … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Scott v. Godwin

147 S.W.3d 609 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

Government officials performing *616 discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v.

Marson v. Thomason

438 S.W.3d 292 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

His general duty to look out for the safety of the students is clearly discretionary in nature, and he is just as clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, he does not have qualified immunity, and can be sued individually.

Lucinda Lovett v. Landon Herbert

907 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

established law for qualified immunity pur- poses. … But this is too fine an analysis on which to base a finding of clearly established law, and we are skeptical that a decision on the merits (not addressing qualified immunity), finding that defendant officials did not violate

Liu v. New York City Police Department

216 A.D.2d 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1995

However, we find that the individual defendants should be granted qualified immunity from plaintiffs civil rights claims. … 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

Celeste Thomas v. Jennifer Myers

489 F. App'x 116 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

Once the defendant raises qualified immunity, however, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must demonstrate both that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right, and that the right was so clearly established … “When a defendant appeals the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, we review de novo whether the complaint alleges violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Heyne v. Metro.

BLASH v. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE AND PULASKI COUNTY GEORGIA SHERRIF'S OFFICE

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 2019

To establish the defense of qualified immunity, a defendant must first show that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority in performing the challenged conduct, and if so, the plaintiff has the burden to … When a mixed motive theory of discrimination is advanced, qualified immunity can still apply because it is clearly established that “state officials ‘can be motivated, in part, by a dislike or hostility toward a certain