Case law

Crittindon v. LeBlanc

37 F.4th 177 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 10, 2022

Nonetheless, the majority concludes three DPSC defendants violated plaintiffs’ clearly established right to timely release from prison and denies them qualified immunity. … Even still, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because it is not clearly established that it violates the Constitution to hold a prisoner for 17 days while employing reasonable efforts to verify his sentence

Bodiford v. State of Ala.

854 F. Supp. 886 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 17, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, the defendants conclude that a reasonable person would have believed their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law, and, thus, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ball v. Cook County School District

889 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Jun 13, 1995

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Government actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil trials for money damages and may not be held liable in their individual capacity if their conduct violates no clearly established

Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. Salt Lake City Corp.

629 P.2d 432 · Utah Supreme Court · May 1, 1981

We think it evident that a governmental entity’s provision of winter recreation does not qualify for immunity under this test. … Standiford , and is clearly contrary to the new test enunciated in that case and applied in this one.

Gwinnett County v. King

218 Ga. App. 800 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 4, 1995

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established.

Baker v. Gray

57 Mass. App. Ct. 618 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 24, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity may shield State officials from liability for civil damages under this statute, so long as they are performing discretionary functions and do not violate “clearly established statutory or … Gray accordingly was entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs’ additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of their clearly established rights under the First Amendment and equal protection clause

Walsh v. Franco

849 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 6, 1988

Qualified or “good faith” immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In Robison , we outlined three ways in which an official could establish his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Nolin (INMATE 1)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 13, 2020

“The purpose of the qualified immunity defense is to protect[] government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the law is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity “only by decisions of the U.S.

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.

Christian v. Fontenot

672 So. 2d 436 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 8, 1996

To avoid the protection of qualified immunity on the basis that the right which *446 the official allegedly violated is "clearly established," the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases clearly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. 483 U.S. at 639

Zar v. Payne

760 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2011

Qualified Immunity The Defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity forecloses the Plaintiffs claims for warrantless entry into her home and use of excessive force. … According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Hicks v. Feeney

596 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, D. Delaware · Nov 8, 1984

This standard mandates that an official is protected by qualified immunity except when his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. … In a recent decision, the Third Circuit defined “clearly established rights” for the purposes of qualified immunity.

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).

Brocuglio v. Proulx

478 F. Supp. 2d 297 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 23, 2007

Defendants also complain that I should not have granted summary judgment, because the law was not clearly established with respect to the curtilage issue, and thus the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity involves a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officials violated the plaintiffs constitutional right; (2) whether the law was clearly established with respect to that right; and (3) whether reasonable

Bamdad v. Drug Enforcement Administration

617 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit for damages unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we need not decide whether it was in fact violated, because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Sorenson v. Ferrie

134 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 11, 1998

Claims of qualified immunity are reviewed under a two-step analysis. The first question is whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … We hold only that, for purposes of qualified immunity in this civil case, the law was not clearly established on this question as of the date of this incident.

Roger Gillispie v. Miami Twp., Ohio

18 F.4th 909 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2021

“[T]he precise scope of our appellate jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity is whether ‘the plaintiff’s version of facts demonstrates a violation of clearly established rights.’” … one and two of the qualified immunity inquiry.”

Narducci v. Moore

572 F.3d 313 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from lawsuits for damages when their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Burge, 874 F.2d 1201, 1204-05 (7th Cir.1988), we held that officials who searched a police officer’s desk and a briefcase found in his car were immune from suit under § 1983 because the search did not violate a clearly established

Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Simmons

401 F. Supp. 2d 1181 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 22, 2005

If plaintiffs make this showing, defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were nonetheless reasonable in light of the clearly established law. Roska ex rel. Roska v. … “A defendant who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceeding, including at trial.” Guffey v.

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