Case law

Hawkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Coffey Cnty. Kan.

376 F. Supp. 3d 1200 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 19, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that even if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of her due process rights, Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly … Alternatively, the Court finds that Maley and Phelan are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because at the time of the alleged violation, the law was not clearly established. See, e.g. , Greene v.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

618 F. Supp. 1534 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 2, 1985

plaintiffs have asserted violations of clearly established rights. … Yet a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity can defeat a section 1983 action prior to discovery only if the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Howell v. Evans

922 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 1991

Absent from the order was any discussion of what the clearly established law was at the time of Howell’s death, an inquiry essential to a determination of immunity. … Generally Applicable Law As stated above, Harlow established the test for qualified immunity.

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

Sanzone v. Gray

884 F.3d 736 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

They all raised a qualified-immunity defense, arguing that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. … To decide whether Gray is entitled to qualified immunity, this court must ask: (1) whether his conduct violated Koster's Fourth Amendment right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Alexander v. County of Los Angeles

64 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 1995

under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct. … Under this approach, we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Id. at 908 . 26 Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

King v. City of Indianapolis

969 F. Supp. 2d 1085 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 29, 2013

Qualified Immunity “Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … King’s right was not clearly established and Defendant Officers are granted qualified immunity on this claim. 2. Fourth Amendment Defendants contend that the seizure of Mr.

Jordan Venema v. Fred West

133 F.4th 625 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 2025

After concluding that the Complaint sufficiently alleged that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, the district court determined that DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity, because clearly established … Violation of a Clearly Established Right Having concluded that the Estate sufficiently pleaded that DeAngelo violated Venema’s constitutional rights, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Thompson v. Upshur County TX

245 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 30, 2001

To ensure that qualified immunity serves its intended purpose, it is of paramount import, during step two, to define “clearly established law” at the proper level of generality. Anderson v. … Thus, the issue as to sheriff Cross’s claim of qualified immunity is whether his policies were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.

Wares v. VanBebber

231 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 8, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … In examining the issue of qualified immunity, defendants argued that the proper inquiry was whether plaintiffs right to special feeding accommodations for Ramadan was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation

Whiting v. Kirk

768 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 21, 1991

The prevailing standard for qualified immunity is that “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first step, then, in deciding the qualified immunity issue is to establish the right that was violated.

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

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

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

Howard v. City Of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2022

Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 388 (5th Cir. 2015) (“It is well established that ‘municipalities have no immunity from damages liability flowing from their constitutional violations.’” (quoting Owen v. … Serrano and Vieira overstate the scope of any potential qualified immunity. See Pelletier, 516 U.S. at 312. Serrano was denied qualified immunity for allegedly conducting an unreasonable strip search.

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.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Therefore, the defendants were entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Kipps, 197 F.3d at 768.

Sawyer v. County of Creek

908 F.2d 663 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 1990

Ramirez argues that Leona Sawyer has pled insufficient facts to overcome Ramirez’s absolute and qualified immunity from suit. 1 We turn first to Ramirez’s claim of qualified immunity. … Unlike other affirmative defenses, qualified immunity is not merely a defense to liability; it is also an immunity from suit.