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

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Gall v. City of Vidor, Tex.

903 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified immunity allows public officials performing discretionary functions to be generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Luce’s actions, this court finds that a clearly established exception to the general rule against warrantless searches and seizures exists and Mr. Luce is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

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.

Harris v. Hayter

970 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 18, 1997

When a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the court should address it at the earliest possible stage because qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is upon the reasonable person and whether he would have known that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent

Reynolds v. County of San Diego

224 F. Supp. 3d 1034 · District Court, S.D. California · Oct 3, 2016

Plaintiffs argue Defendant Bryson’s claim of qualified immunity should be defeated because she should have known that her actions violated the Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights. … In the Ninth Circuit, courts assess qualified immunity using a two-part analysis: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 ).

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.

Lewis v. Guerrero

978 S.W.2d 689 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Nov 5, 1998

Qualified immunity may thus be properly invoked to protect “government officials performing discretionary functions to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Nevertheless, we stated he did not prove his defense of qualified immunity because he did not establish the “good faith element.” 6 Guerrero, 946 S.W.2d at 573 .