Case law

Gordon v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

App. 1998)—are not binding, nor do they muddle the clearly established principles set forth above so as to support the District’s claim of qualified immunity. … proving that the defendant “violated clearly established rights” and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Spears v. Garcia

263 Conn. 22 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 1, 2003

When a municipal employee is sued, he or she may assert qualified immunity as a common-law defense. … While a benefit accrues to the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee

SCHROEDER v. DeKALB COUNTY Et Al.

341 Ga. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 14, 2017

Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Mark Robbins v. Randy Becker, Sr.

715 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2013

qualified immunity. … established”); Katosang v.

Foley v. University of Houston System

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

Blake, 913 F.2d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1990). 6 entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Quinones v. Howard

948 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 11, 1996

It is well-established that issues involving the defense of qualified immunity should ordinarily be decided “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Anderson v. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

Dennis Lee Campbell v. Paul Burt, and John Doe (3), Police Officers

141 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1998

The primary issue before us is whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the seven-day delay before filing the petition and obtaining post-deprivation judicial review violated Campbell’s clearly established procedural … However, “[a]n official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not ‘clearly established.’ ” Campbell, 949 F.Supp. at 1468 (quoting Anderson v.

Willingham v. Crooke

412 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 23, 2005

This is known as the defense of qualified immunity. 13 Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. In this case, Ms. … immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Craig Brown v. georgiacarry.org, Inc.

331 Ga. App. 890 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Apr 10, 2015

And in the context of a § 1983 claim, qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … That appeal was from the denial of a motion to suppress in a criminal prosecution, not a claim of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action.

Columbian Financial Corporation v. Stork

811 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 26, 2016

Thull enjoy qualified immunity on this claim because the alleged conduct would not have violated a clearly established constitutional right. … For qualified immunity, however, the question is whether that constitutional requirement was clearly established.

Joseph C. Booker, D/B/A Booker Trucking Company v. City of Atlanta, a Municipal Corporation, F. M. Couvillion

776 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1986

Even if unintended, such an effect could constitute police “intervention and aid” sufficient to establish state action. See Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 513 ; Jeffries v. … If Couvillion’s actions were within the scope of his official duties, he is immune from suit if he acted under a good faith belief that the actions were legal. See Clark v.

Buckner v. SHETTERLEY

621 F. Supp. 2d 1300 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 15, 2008

DISCUSSION Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial to defeat Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity and that it was not “clearly established” that her conduct violated Plaintiffs … For purposes of qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit has identified three sources of “clearly established” law.

Fortner v. Thomas

983 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1993

clearly established law." … It is well established that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability as long as the officials could reasonably believe that their conduct did not violate clearly established

Joe Carollo v. Luigi Boria

833 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2016

the alleged violation “clearly established” those rights (the “immunity” prong). … “So conceived, the object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning,’” United States v.

Owens v. City of New York

183 A.D.3d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2020

If the officer's actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, or if it was objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that his actions did not violate a clearly established right or law, his or her actions … event, he is entitled to qualified immunity for any such alleged failure ( see Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d at 686 ).

WALKER v. REGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2021

trooper was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force did not violate a clearly established right). … No. 201) where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that, for the purposes of qualified immunity, “[t]o be clearly established, a right must be so apparent that ‘every reasonable official would understand that what

MCCLOUD v. VANSHOYCK

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 19, 2024

Defendants Holt, Donovan, Barlow, Hall, and Nicholson all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is not a clearly established right to an additional decontamination shower beyond … "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." White v.

Praisner v. State

189 Conn. App. 540 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Apr 30, 2019

The state argues that because the plaintiff has not established that he falls clearly within any of the classifications of individuals specified therein, sover- eign immunity bars his action for monetary relief. … To avoid dismissal, the allega- tions of his complaint, construed in their most favorable light, must establish either that his indemnification action falls clearly within a statutory waiver of sover- eign immunity or that

Tosun Fitil v. Justyn Riley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2026

What we can review is the denial of qualified immunity on Fitil’s Fourth Amendment claim. … Even though the plaintiff “was shot in the knee with a rubber bullet” from “less than 10 feet away,” we granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established “as of April 2021 that officers effect a seizure when

Drake v. Scott

812 F.2d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 20, 1987

defendant state officials had violated clearly established rights to free speech. … In addition, in the present case the question of qualified immunity itself depends in large part on whether defendants knew or should have known that Drake had a clearly established property interest in the job at the time