Case law

Long v. L'ESPERANCE

166 Vt. 566 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jul 11, 1997

The protection from suit afforded a state employee such as defendant is qualified, not absolute: defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if he was “(1) acting during [his] employment and acting, or reasonably believing … As a general matter, good faith exists if the “official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known.” Murray v.

Davis v. Hodgkiss

11 F.4th 329 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 25, 2021

The first such determination is “that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. … The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity if no constitutional violation occurred or if the conduct “did not violate law clearly established at the time.” Id.

Ryan v. Burlington County

889 F.2d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 21, 1989

The Freeholders raise two defenses against Ryan’s suit: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. … , then those officials must be held accountable for instances where their actions violate clearly established rights.

Nolin v. Town of Springville

45 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 22, 1999

“For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all *907 reasonable … In Lewis , the Supreme Court clarified the rationale behind resolving the substantive issues in a qualified immunity case before addressing the question of whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Vives v. City of New York

305 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2003

Are the Detectives Entitled to Qualified Immunity? … Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir.1998) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, but there was some doubt as to whether a “reasonable official would

Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi

912 F.3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 28, 2018

Qualified immunity, again, was not available because the right to be free from punitive detention was already clearly established at the time. Id. at 707. … Once again, qualified immunity was not justified, the Court said, because the right against retaliation was clearly established at the time. Id. at 711-12.

Tamela Muir v. Decatur County, Iowa

917 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 8, 2019

established federal rights.’” … right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Michael C. v. Gresbach

526 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 19, 2008

The defendants responded that their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and that therefore they were protected by qualified immunity. Both parties moved for summary judgment. … If the right was “clearly established,” the official is not entitled to qualified immunity from suit. A.

Lawny Lamar Browning v. Richard A. Vernon, Director Ron McKinsey

44 F.3d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Vernon and McKinsey contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from damages because the allegations in the complaint do not constitute violations of a clearly established liberty interest protected by the Due Process … clearly established?

Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez

790 F.3d 99 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 17, 2015

right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. … AFFIRMED. 5 The district court also decided the qualified immunity issue by finding that there was no plausible deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right. -18-

Doherty v. Rutgers School of Law-Newark

651 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 1981

The affidavits clearly show that plaintiff would not have been admitted to any of the law schools even if no minority group members had been admitted. … He clearly was qualified for admission and the trial court so found. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, slip op. at 5, No. 31287 (Calif.Super.Ct.

Lelieve v. Oroso

846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2012

Therefore, the burden shifts to Lelieve to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense. B. Alleged Constitutional Violations 1. … In sum, Lelieve has not met his burden to demonstrate that Belfort violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right to overcome the qualified-immunity defense.

Brown v. City of Oneonta

106 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 14, 1997

We hold that because it was unclear whether FERPA’s “emergency exception” allowed release of the list, no clearly established right of plaintiffs was infringed and appellants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims … The function of qualified immunity is to shield from suit those public officials who must make such decisions where, as here, the law is not clear, and no “clearly established right” is infringed.

Casteel v. Pieschek

3 F.3d 1050 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1993

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits from damages unless their' conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules regarding county jail

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Rovira Rivera v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

364 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ last argument is that their conduct is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was 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

Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

726 S.W.2d 582 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1987

However, to protect officials from groundless section 1983 suits, the federal courts have recognized what is known as qualified good faith immunity. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Culberson v. Clay County

98 F.4th 281 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 8, 2024

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)). … Furthermore, even if Culberson had used Brown to argue there was a violation of clearly established law, that case did not address whether jail staff were entitled to qualified immunity because only the supervising sheriff

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Jeffrey

178 So. 3d 460 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 20, 2015

Accordingly, because the challenged order in this case denied Officer Johnson’s claim of qualified immunity, he has established the jurisdictional prerequisite of irreparable harm necessary to obtain review of the order … A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest claim under § 1983 if the evidence establishes that the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. See Vermette v.

Ali v. Reno

237 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

Clearly, her journey back to Syria and then to the United States did not constitute flight from persecution. … Furthermore, she clearly established significant ties in Denmark, even though she did not reside in that country for an extended length of time. 1 *596 In addition, the Danish authorities’ declaration that they are no longer