Case law

WVDHHR v. Virginia Prince

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Alamo Workforce Development, Inc. v. Vann

21 S.W.3d 428 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2, 2000

Clearly this statutorily-defined structure establishes that work *433 force boards act as arms of the State and carry out the policies established by the Texas Workforce Commission. … This evidence is consistent with statutory provisions which establish service delivery areas for qualifying localities. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1511 (West 1999).

Mafuz Blanco v. Tirado Delgado

641 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 1986

As applied, this objective qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government … Defendant concedes that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s removal.

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

286 F. Supp. 3d 745 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 13, 2017

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Court will begin with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis-whether the rights Plaintiff claims the Individual Defendants violated were clearly established at the time of their actions.

Cynthia Bloch and Thomas Bloch v. Sheriff L. John Ribar

156 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 21, 1998

On appeal, the Blochs claim that the district court erred by granting qualified immunity to Ribar. They argue that the right to criticize a public official is a clearly established right under the First Amendment. … defense of qualified immunity.”

Morales v. City of New York

59 F. Supp. 3d 573 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Applying those standards here, there is no question that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Antonio Smith v. John Kind

140 F.4th 359 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2025

But the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against reason- ing from broad principles when considering whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. See Kisela, 584 U.S. at 104. … Sheriff of Cook County, 993 F.3d 981, 988 (7th Cir. 2021) (“The prong-two clearly-established-law assess- ment does not require a case with identical factual circum- stances, lest qualified immunity become absolute immun-

Finch v. City of New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2008

This Court held, inter alia, that any right to a prompt administrative hearing was not clearly established, entitling the individual defendants to qualified immunity. 4 *354 B. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Lee v. Sandberg

136 F.3d 94 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Even if a clearly established statutory or constitutional right is violated, qualified immunity is nonetheless a defense if the officers' unlawful actions were objectively reasonable "as measured by reference to clearly established … Therefore, the State Troopers are not entitled to summary judgment under the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity standard. 32 The State Troopers are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment on qualified

Varrone v. Bilotti

123 F.3d 75 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 1997

It held that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was clearly established at the time that strip searches of prison visitors could be made only when based upon reasonable suspicion. Varrone v. … The law was "clearly established" if the circuit's decisions "clearly foreshadow" a particular ruling on the issue. Id. Decisions of other circuits also may indicate whether the law was clearly established. See Weber v.

Descant v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund

639 So. 2d 246 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Jul 5, 1994

The retained amount increases to $2,000,000.00 in the event the limitation of liability established by the Medical Malpractice Act is modified or abrogated. … XII, § 10. [9] Louisiana courts have held the following immunities to be personal to the insured and therefore unavailable to the insurer: interspousal immunity, parental immunity, governmental immunity, charitable immunity

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

Qualified Immunity A motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is only precluded when the plaintiff has “(1) asserted] a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate^] that the alleged right is clearly … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Wilkinson v. Balsam

885 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, D. Vermont · Apr 17, 1995

Thus, as under federal qualified immunity, [g]ood faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known. … For purposes of state law qualified immunity, however, the “clearly established rights” need not be federal constitutional or statutory rights, as required in the application of the federal qualified immunity defense; to

Buford v. Holladay

133 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 18, 1990

Once a section 1983 plaintiff establishes that the law defining the allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, the qualified immunity defense will ordinarily fail, “since a reasonably … immunity if the right allegedly violated in this matter was clearly established at the time that the violation occurred.

Massaro v. Town of Trumbull

525 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 13, 2007

Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions *307 violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Pucci v. Nineteenth District Court

628 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 16, 2010

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If a constitutional violation can be found, the second prong of a qualified immunity analysis examines “whether the right was clearly established” at the time of the deprivation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Estate of Sorrells v. City of Dallas

192 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2000

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Shimomura v. Carlson

17 F. Supp. 3d 1120 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 14, 2014

Qualified Immunity. … Shimomura has met the first prong of the qualified immunity test by establishing that no probable cause existed to support the arrest. 2. Clearly Established Right.

Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

927 F.3d 455 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified immunity protects those officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … (2) If so, was that right clearly established?