Case law

Roxanne Adams v. Debra Ferguson

884 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 6, 2018

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Mullenix v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Tate v. Alexander

527 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 30, 1981

Some controversy has developed over the years concerning exactly how one can tell that a particular constitutional right has become “clearly established” for purposes of applying qualified immunity for official actions, and … was therefore not clearly established.

Quinn v. Webster County, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Mar 30, 2023

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … While his contention is clearly that it occurred prior to entering the cell, the allegation provides no further context as to when it happened.

Jacobi v. Holbert

553 S.W.3d 246 · Missouri Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2018

For all these reasons, the DPA is clearly a state agency to which governmental immunity is extended. … The DPA is clearly not functioning as a profit-driven entity. 3.

Long v. Underwood

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suit “in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Univ., 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Systems Protection Board

165 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 21, 1999

This is clearly not the equivalent of an 18-month suspension without pay. … While Davis involved a challenge to different tax treatment of federal and state retirees' retirement benefits, the challenge was not based on equal protection, but on a federal statute which preserves federal employees’ immunity

Brosseau v. Haugen

543 U.S. 194 · Supreme Court of the United States · Dec 13, 2004

not entitled to qualified immunity. … We grant the petition on the second, qualified immunity question and reverse.

West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Billie Taylor

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 2, 2023

Furthermore, the circuit court found questions of fact existed about qualified immunity, namely whether DOCR violated clearly established rights of the respondent about which a reasonable person would have known, or acted … When weighing the evidence regarding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, a court is guided by the following standard: The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars

Hitoshi Yoshikawa v. Troy Seguirant

41 F.4th 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 25, 2022

Because there is a circuit split, he claims that there is no clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. We are not persuaded by this argument. … Simply put, invoking McDonnell Douglas at this stage created unnecessary confusion over the clearly established law test for qualified immunity.

Torres v. Goddard

194 F. Supp. 3d 886 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jul 1, 2016

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … As a matter of law, clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes is the law clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue.

Brockington v. City of Philadelphia

354 F. Supp. 2d 563 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 2005

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Martinique Stoudemire v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections

705 F.3d 560 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 31, 2013

Taken together, these sentences clearly suffice as an assertion of qualified immunity. … Dunagan focuses on whether the law regarding same- sex strip searches is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. However, No. 11-1588 Stoudemire v. Mich.

Piphus v. Blum

108 Ohio App. 3d 218 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

would believe was lawful in light of “clearly established law” and “information possessed” at the time of the challenged conduct. … In the absence of that clearly established right, the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

PHILLIPS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pa. 2001) (“[T]he right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”).

DE MONTALVO v. DIXON

District Court, N.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2024

FDC Defendants also assert qualified immunity. ECF No. 32 at 24-25. III. … proceed to the next step of determining if a constitutional right was clearly established”).

Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Moritz

39 Ohio App. 3d 132 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1987

Appellants assert the following as their sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in denying defendants-appellants’ good faith immunity defense where defendants-appellants violated no clearly established constitutional … Harlow holds that until the threshold question of immunity is resolved, whether the law or right which the official is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the appeal violation and whether a reasonable

State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN CTY. OF MARICOPA

185 Ariz. 47 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Feb 20, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government agents if a reasonable government officer could have believed his actions to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed at the time. Hunter v. … First, no “clearly established” legal rights were violated. Plaintiff Donaldson bears the burden of showing that “the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Romero v.

DiMeglio v. Haines

45 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1995

“clearly established law” has an acquired meaning in the qualified immunity context referencing law at the time of the challenged conduct. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

Mawson v. Pittston Police Department

145 F. Supp. 3d 363 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2015

The defendant objects to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established. (Doc. 93, p. 13). … Again, for the purposes of qualified immunity, the court must determine whether the facts — taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — establish a violation of clearly established law and that a reasonable