Case law

Betances v. Fischer

144 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Qualified Immunity This Court has previously held that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. 63 Defendants had argued that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time those rights

Heitschmidt v. City of Houston

161 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 1998

clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) allege conduct that is objectively unreasonable. … With regard to his unlawful detention claim, Heitschmidt asserts his clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizure of his person, a right which he maintains includes the clearly established right to be free

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.”

Huertas Morales v. Agosto-Alicea

278 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendants, the conduct of Juan Agosto Alicea is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. … The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable

DeNieva v. Reyes

966 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 5, 1992

Thus, as we stated in Romero , [t]he qualified immunity test necessitates three inquiries: (1) the identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) the determination of whether that right was so ‘clearly established … Did DeNieva Identify a Specific Right, and Was it Clearly Established? We can consider the first two prongs of the Romero test together, as both raise the question of Reyes’ violation of a clearly established right.

McGrath v. Scott

250 F. Supp. 2d 1218 · District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 12, 2003

In Harlow , the Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity as whether the official violated “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, State Defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Therefore, the burden of persuasion shifted to Plaintiff to establish a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Roth v. Guzman

650 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 13, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials and employees performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Relying on the Eleventh Circuit decision in Collier affirming the denial of qualified immunity to state officials for disclosures under the DPPA, the district court concluded that the plain language of the DPPA clearly established

Eaton v. Estabrook

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 9, 2025

immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that his actions were unconstitutional. … Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the official violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ricciuti v.

Patrick Stockdale v. Kim Helper

979 F.3d 498 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 30, 2020

But because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … Qualified Immunity. That leaves Helper’s qualified immunity defense against Stockdale and Dunning’s § 1983 claim.

Deezia v. City of Lincoln

350 F. Supp. 3d 868 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Oct 29, 2018

. ----, 136 S.Ct. 305 , 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (specificity in defining clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes "is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized … For qualified immunity purposes, the question then becomes whether the law at the time of the incident clearly established that the level of force used in this context constituted excessive force. Ehlers v.

Wilbert Glover v. R. Paul

78 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 24, 2023

On appeal, Paul maintains that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff shows that the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. See Harlow v.

McGory v. Metcalf

665 So. 2d 254 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 3, 1995

The next inquiry is whether the law allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of *259 the incident. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Harlow v.

Tomashek v. Raleigh Cnty. Emergency Operating Ctr.

344 F. Supp. 3d 869 · United States District Court · Sep 26, 2018

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "[g]overnmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for money damages so long 'as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Meadows and Johnson are entitled to qualified immunity. The court need not address whether the right was clearly established.

Roden v. Wright

646 So. 2d 605 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Aug 19, 1994

This burden is met by proof demonstrating that the defendant public official's actions 'violated clearly established constitutional law.' Zeigler [v. Jackson ], 716 F.2d [847] at 849 [11th Cir. 1983]. Accord, I.A. … Thus, in stating that "[i]t does not violate any clearly established constitutional principle for a politician . . . to write a letter to Gold Kist, Inc. encouraging the latter not to enter into an arrangement to place chicken

Roberts v. Lipson

231 Ga. 142 · Supreme Court of Georgia · Sep 6, 1973

from taxation or regulation should not be interpreted as including that immunity.” … It is well established in this state that exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed, "and the exemption will not be held to be conferred unless the terms under which it is granted clearly and distinctly show that

Kindra O'Bryant v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

If the specific right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. A. … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Chico Scrap Metal, Inc. v. Raphael

830 F. Supp. 2d 966 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2011

The 11th Amendment does not bar this claim. c) Qualified Immunity Defendants finally argue that they are immune from suit in this instance because of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacity from monetary damages, unless their conduct violates “clearly established” law that would be known to a reasonable public officer

Espanola Way Corp. v. Murray Meyerson

690 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1982

Further, the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to officials who, though otherwise covered, act with malice 1 or contrary to clearly established law. Procunier v. … Fifth, a conscious attempt to deprive property owners of property without due process of law clearly contravenes established law.

Mallin v. City of Eastlake

755 F. Supp. 2d 819 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2010

Violation of a Clearly Established Right Thompson may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Mallin’s right to be free from having his face slammed into a car and being choked was not clearly established at the time of … Because Mallín failed to carry his burden of proving that a reasonable officer should have known that Gonzales’s actions violated a clearly established right, the Court must grant Gonzales qualified immunity as a matter of

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

78 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 24, 1996

immunity and where issue appealed concerned whether or not certain given facts showed violation of "clearly established" law). … officials performing discretionary functions may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to shield them from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights