Case law

Skatemore, Inc. v. Gretchen Whitmer

40 F.4th 727 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Assuming Plaintiffs alleged an unconstitutional taking, they have failed to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.5 The Supreme Court has cautioned courts “not to define clearly established

Manuel v. Gill

270 Mich. App. 355 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

The trial court further determined that because none of the alleged conduct by the individuals amounted to a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … established,” for purposes of qualified immunity, the federal court stated, “Taylor is not and never was entitled to qualified immunity against this claim.” 46 Whether a confidential informant may bring an action under §

Clyde Weiler v. James Purkett Leah Embly

137 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 2, 1998

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government actors from suit when, “a reasonable officer could have believed [the challenged act] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [defendants … Contours of the Right as “Clearly Established” Normally, a determination that the plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of a constitutional right ends the qualified immunity inquiry. See, e.g., Thomas v.

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

Jensen v. Brown

131 F.4th 677 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 10, 2025

The Administrators were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time that a professor has a right to * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. … Because “it is not possible to determine at this stage as a matter of law that [Jensen] has not alleged a violation of clearly established law,” the Administrators are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage

Velasquez v. Audirsch

574 F. App'x 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In this context, “qualified immunity turns ... on whether it was then ‘clearly established that the circumstances with which’ the officer ‘was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances.’ ” Pierce

Francisco Cheveras Pacheco v. Juan M. Rivera Gonzalez

809 F.2d 125 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 13, 1987

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the damages claim on the theory that they had not violated clearly established law and that hence they were entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity question in this case is whether it was clearly established in 1985 that a transitory employee with only a subjective expectation of permanent employment was entitled to the protections of due process

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 2006

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an individual is immune from suit if he undertook the actions complained of in good faith in the performance of his duties and the acts do not violate any clearly established constitutional … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not apply where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Id. ; Robinson v.

Merchant v. Fairfax County, Va.

778 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 11, 2011

Yet, this does not end the qualified immunity analysis. The second step of the inquiry requires determining whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established” in the specific context presented here. … Merchant — -was clearly established. Therefore, Officer Bauer is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 14 *650 B.

White v. State

78 Wash. App. 824 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defense The State argues that if White engaged in protected speech, Blanchard and Harrah are immune from liability under the defense of qualified immunity. … Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity has been raised in a case on summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the alleged "clearly established” constitutional right.

Lightfoot v. Floyd

667 So. 2d 56 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 4, 1995

Henson and Chief Smith and the qualified immunity of Investigator Floyd. … Lightfoot has stated a cause of action for conversion against Investigator Floyd and Floyd did not establish that he was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the summary judgment for Floyd on this claim was

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

Caron v. Hester, et al.

2001 DNH 206 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 13, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … To qualify as a clearly established right, “the law must have defined the right in a quite specific manner, and . . . the announcement of the rule establishing the right must have been unambiguous and widespread, such

Boyer v. Mohring

994 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2014

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 1, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens, the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.

Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State

191 Ariz. 222 · Arizona Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1998

That section provides in relevant part: Qualified Immunity A. … were dismissed on the pleadings under the doctrine of absolute immunity, we do not reach the question of qualified immunity.

Ex Parte Kelley

739 So. 2d 1095 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 25, 1999

This Court has addressed the question presented here on other occasions, and it has recently held in Ex parte Davis, supra, that acts by a State employee may be immune from a lawsuit, on the basis of qualified immunity, if … However, acts by a State employee that are merely ministerial in nature are not protected by qualified immunity. See Defoor v.

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.

Adams v. Thompson

560 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 14, 1983

Qualified immunity now depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, not upon malice or other subjective factors. Harlow v. … Since it is clear that qualified or “good faith” immunity is an affirmative defense, Gomez v.

Parker v. St. Lawrence County Public Health Department

102 A.D.3d 140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 2012

In response, then Governor Paterson issued an executive order declaring a disaster emergency with respect to the influenza outbreak, which authorized state and local health departments to establish immunization programs in … We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs assertion that immunity pursuant to the PREP Act does not extend to qualified persons who administer a covered countermeasure to an individual without consent.