Case law

J. D. Pflaumer, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

450 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 18, 1978

at most, only the qualified immunity enjoyed by police officers. … Defendant Manno, based on the allegations of this case, is entitled to only a qualified immunity defense, requiring him to establish that his alleged action in directing the seizure of the plaintiffs’ records was done in

Linda L. Harrell, Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Surviving Spouse of Larry Gene Harrell, Deceased v. Decatur County, Ga.

22 F.3d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 1994

Thus, if the law was clearly established, the qualified immunity privilege “ordinarily should fail, because a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Deputy Morris The focus of our inquiry into deputy Morris’s assertion of qualified immunity is whether his actions violated clearly established law. Rich, 841 F.2d at 1564 .

Johnson v. Waters

317 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 11, 2004

be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Id.

Poolaw v. Marcantel

565 F.3d 721 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 4, 2009

Concluding that these Fourth Amendment principles were clearly established when the incidents occurred, the court denied qualified immunity. Marcantel and Hix now appeal. … City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (10th Cir.2008) (“[T]he clearly established weight of authority from other courts” establishes a right for the purposes of qualified immunity.).

Wayne Scott and Gary Johnson v. Charles Godwin

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Aug 31, 2004

In conducting a qualified immunity analysis, the reviewing court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. See Siegert v. … “‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Hansen v. Lamontagne

808 F. Supp. 89 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 20, 1992

A government official exercising discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity in respect to § 1983 claims only if his or her conduct does not violate *92 “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights … When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, it is plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate defendant’s infringement of a “clearly established” federal right.

Mills v. City of Shreveport

58 F. Supp. 3d 677 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their performance of discretionary functions, unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.' See Ontiveros v. … clearly established right.

Kosta v. Connolly

709 F. Supp. 592 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1989

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions taken against plaintiffs. In Harlow v. … Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (defendants not entitled to qualified immunity where law clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights).

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 .

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

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

Gold v. City of Miami

121 F.3d 1442 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

Discussion Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and damage liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … At the time, no cases clearly established that those actions did not constitute legally proscribed disorderly conduct.

Harris v. Dugger

757 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity The Court next must consider the magistrate’s recommendation on the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … A determination of whether an official violated clearly established law itself requires the Court to make two inquiries. First, the Court must ascertain the law that was “clearly established.”

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

Fijalkowski v. Wheeler

361 F. Supp. 3d 577 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 12, 2019

Yet importantly, the well-established, judicially-created 5 defense of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from civil liability under § 1983"unless their actions violated 'clearly established statutory … qualified immunity from plaintiff's due process claim.

Donna L. Todd v. United States of America and R.S. Wintrode, Jr., District Director, Internal Revenue Service

849 F.2d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 10, 1988

Accordingly, we confine this analysis to the qualified immunity issue. Ill Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity presents a question of law. Mitchell v. … In such a case the defendant will be immune from suit. On the other hand, if a defendant has violated clearly established law, he will generally be liable.

Mehta v. Foskey

877 F. Supp. 2d 1367 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 29, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity “turns on the objective legal reason *1376 ableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

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.

Egolf v. Witmer

526 F.3d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 22, 2008

The court granted immunity on the basis that the constitutional rights were not “clearly established” in the circumstances of this case. This appeal followed. … Qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.” Anderson v.