Case law

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.

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

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

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.

Aldini v. Johnson

609 F.3d 858 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Bodine was entitled to qualified immunity. … Under the “clearly established” inquiry, the question is whether the right was “so ‘clearly established’ that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

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.

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

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.

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

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.”

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).

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

Cuervo v. Sorenson

112 F.4th 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing her FAC on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants ask us to affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … We now examine the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We conclude Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Laura Toms and Ira Chaiffetz v. Bob Taft Reginald J. Wilkinson Anthony J. Brigano Lawrence Belskis Mark Clark

338 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2003

The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that reasonable officials would know that their conduct violated the right. … Although courts engaging in qualified immunity analyses often consider only case law when determining whether the right at issue was clearly established, the Supreme Court in Hope also considered a Department of Justice report

Williams v. Board of County Commissioners

125 N.M. 445 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 16, 1998

Qualified immunity protects officials whose conduct does not contravene “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Garrett v. Stratman

254 F.3d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 20, 2001

of clearly established law.” … a violation of clearly established law.”

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.