Case law

Woodward v. City of Worland

977 F.2d 1392 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

The Supervisors therefore should have been granted qualified immunity on this claim because their conduct did not violate any clearly established law constituting constructive discharge. 2. … ’s constructive discharge claim, but they have not established qualified immunity as to the constructive discharge claims of Molina and DeSomber; Williams, Sackett and *1405 Mitchell are entitled to qualified immunity on

Martinez v. Hardy

864 S.W.2d 767 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1993

Indeed, our finding of absolute privilege could be expressed in terms of qualified immunity. … Our absolute privilege analysis clearly shows that the first two elements of qualified immunity are met.

Saenz v. Lovington Municipal School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 30, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Sullivan v. Sumrall by Ritchey

618 So. 2d 1274 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 1993

Bobbie Sullivan raised the defense of qualified immunity and/or absolute immunity pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-11 , et seq. (Supp. 1991). … . § 41-13-11 (Supp. 1991), which provides immunity for community hospitals established pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-15 (Supp. 1991).

Shilling v. Crawford

536 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 12, 2008

Plaintiff argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights under RLUIPA. 1. … Qualified immunity applies unless a defendant’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hope v.

Schiff v. Dorsey

877 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 30, 1994

Whereas officials cloaked in absolute immunity are automatically protected against all suits for monetary damages, officials who are entitled to qualified immunity are amenable to suit only when they violate a “clearly established … Qualified immunity protects government officials when their performance of a discretionary function does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jesse Drewniak v. P U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al.

2021 DNH 020 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 26, 2021

Qualter’s Assertions of Qualified Immunity Do Not Warrant a Stay of All Pretrial Proceedings and Discovery Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly … It is for this reason that, “[u]nless 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

Cochran v. Gilliam

656 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 2, 2011

a violation of clearly established law.” … Because the subject of the interlocutory appeal is limited to the pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged constitute a violation of clearly established law, “a defendant seeking qualified immunity must be willing to

Kravitz v. Police Department of the Hudson

285 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

“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 … “The defendant must establish that he [or she] had an objectively reasonable belief that his [or her] act violated no clearly established rights [citation omitted]” (Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102

Wallett v. Anderson

198 F.R.D. 20 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 1, 2000

Qualified Immunity Delaney next asserts that she is immune from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is beyond cavil that qualified immunity shields a defendant “from liability for civil damages insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory … “The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

380 F.3d 872 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiff’s allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right. Hare v. … 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.

Grove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Commission

642 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 1986

All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 2. … Qualified Immunity All defendants seek insulation from Section 1983 damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.

Amanda Pierner-Lytge v. Montrell Hobbs

60 F.4th 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2023

Qualified Immunity “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … No. 22-1976 Under prong two, Pierner-Lytge must demonstrate that it was clearly established in April 2020 that probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct did not exist.

Jones v. Han

993 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 28, 2014

The qualified-immunity analysis employs a two-part test: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional

Kristin Hart v. City of Redwood City

99 F.4th 543 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 19, 2024

Moreover, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. … To deny qualified immunity, not only must a constitutional right be violated, but that right must be “clearly established” at the time. Wesby, 583 U.S. at 62–63.

Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson

785 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2015

The Qualified Immunity Defense and the Clearly Established Requirement The qualified immunity defense “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Robbins v. Wilkie

433 F.3d 755 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

That is, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established. … Robbins has thus sufficiently alleged a violation of his clearly established Fifth Amendment rights, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Robbins' Bivens claim. 2.

McGaughey v. City of Chicago

690 F. Supp. 707 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 27, 1988

clearly established at the time of the incident. … The case law under which defendants are to be tested as to whether they had probable cause to arrest McGaughey for disorderly conduct under the facts of this case was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr.

347 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 28, 2018

Government officials invoke qualified immunity to shield themselves "from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged misconduct." 12 "For a right to be clearly established under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the contours of that right must be sufficiently