Case law

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Maxfield v. Bressler

20 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 18, 2013

To resolve qualified immunity claims, a court must consider two elements: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … However, they assert that Bresslér is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the violated right was not clearly established law.

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

Suddith v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISS.

977 So. 2d 1158 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jul 31, 2007

Qualified or "good faith" immunity "shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … As discussed in the next section of this opinion, Suddith fails to establish that there has been a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

King's Grant Inn v. Gilford, et al.

2005 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 16, 2005

qualified immunity from liability for enforcing it. … Because the contours of the legal right defendants violated were not clearly established at the time they acted, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability, and they are entitled

Crenshaw v. Lister

556 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2009

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity and, after finding that Crenshaw had to establish the violation of a clearly-established right, the court concluded that, under Crenshaw’s version of the facts, “no reasonable … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Parrish v. Ball

594 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Hicks v. Phipps

765 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 5, 1990

Public officials have qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. … Therefore, Vanover is entitled to qualified immunity from Mrs. Hicks’ claim for civil damages.

Ortiz v. Torgenson

District Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”

Abdul Khan v. Newell Normand, Sheriff, et a

683 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Courts “have discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id.

Higgins v. Town of Concord

246 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2017

The Court cannot determine whether Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The defendants argue ' that Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts One and Two. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Greene v. Knight

564 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2008

demonstrating that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

69 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, D. Nevada · Nov 21, 2014

Second, Defendants argue that, even if Catanese violated the Fourth Amendment, he should still receive qualified immunity because Koiro did not carry his burden of showing that the right violated was clearly established. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Chappell

Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 26, 2024

Even if the Pickering factors weighed more in Moschetti’s favor, Westfall would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the factors would favor an employee over an organization akin … See Brickey, 828 F.3d at 304 (holding qualified immunity was warranted when balancing of the employee’s and employer’s interests were not clearly established). 16 a substantial factor

Redpath v. City of Overland Park

857 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 1994

That objective test is in tension with, but not inconsistent with, a claim of qualified immunity where the existence of a violation of the clearly established law depends on the government official’s subjective intent. … When qualified immunity is granted because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation—rather than on a determination that the law was not clearly established—such a finding is equivalent to a decision on the merits

Hendricks v. Mallozzi

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 24, 2023

In the alternative, Defendant Delutis argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … the program, and (3) Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Lawmaster v. Ward

125 F.3d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 18, 1997

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … We would be placing an impracticable burden on plaintiffs if we required them to cite to a factually identical case before determining they showed the law was "clearly established" and cleared the qualified immunity hurdle