Case law

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

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.

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

Norman v. Ingle

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2025

When a defendant appeals a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we “have interlocutory jurisdiction to determine whether [the plaintiff’s] summary judgment facts state a claim under clearly established … has the burden of showing that qualified immunity is unavailable because they violated at least one clearly established constitutional right.

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

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

P.G.S. v. S. Hendricks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a

J.M.M. v. Hernandez

151 F. Supp. 3d 1125 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 7, 2015

Qualified Immunity under Section 1983 Qualified immunity-shields state actors from monetary liability under *1132 § 1983 unless (1) the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of the plaintiffs constitutional … rights and (2) the constitutional right in question was “clearly established” when the alleged misconduct occurred. 49 A state official enjoys qualified immunity if she “reasonably believes that [her] conduct complies with

Tidik v. Ritsema

938 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 12, 1996

Their duties clearly qualify as adjudicative or prosecutorial. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity under section 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of a constitutionally protected right, and that the protected right is so clearly established that “a reasonable official would

Villages, LLC v. Longhi

166 Conn. App. 685 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 5, 2016

plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion in which it contended that neither qualified immunity, governmental immunity, nor absolute immunity barred its claims against the defendant given the intentional nature … 52-557n (c), which provides qualified immunity for uncompensated members of munici- pal commissions and boards.

Coleman v. Rieck

253 F. Supp. 2d 1101 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time … The officers may still be entitled to qualified immunity if Coleman’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Ellis v. Vance

227 F. Supp. 3d 627 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jan 3, 2017

As discussed below, plaintiffs failure to offer more specific authority means that she is unable to establish the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, but it also makes it exceedingly difficult for … This court now turns to the second, or “clearly established,” prong of the qualified immunity standard. The U.S.

Jewellean S. Mangaroo v. Ivory v. Nelson

864 F.2d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 8, 1989

Government officials sued in their individual capacities for money damages are entitled to qualified immunity from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly-established constitutional right of which a … Without expressing any view on whether she actually had a property interest in her position, we hold, for the purposes of our qualified-immunity analysis, that it was not clearly established, at the time of her demotion,

Turner v. Nelson

342 S.W.3d 866 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2011

application of “qualified official immunity.” … Qualified Official Immunity from Tort Liability Turner also argues that she is entitled to “qualified official immunity” from suit.

Smith v. Robinson

456 F. Supp. 449 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 1978

Under the circumstances, the “clearly established right” aspect of Wood v. Strickland is unavailing to plaintiff here, and defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity must therefore prevail. … With respect to the equal protection claim, however, plaintiff does not even suggest that prior decisions delineate a “clearly established” right that would defeat defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

Conner v. Tate

130 F. Supp. 2d 1370 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 9, 2001

In Lassiter , the Eleventh Circuit held that for a law to be clearly established in the qualified immunity context, “preexisting law must dictate, that is truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about) … as clearly established law.

Currier v. Doran

242 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 1, 2001

Because Plaintiffs have alleged a clearly established constitutional claim against Defendants Doran and Gonzales, these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity; this court therefore affirms the district court … Clearly Established Law Once defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that the law on which the plaintiff relies was clearly established at the time of the defendants

3502 Partners LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 01118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 2026

Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit ( see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc. , 74 AD3d 499, 499-500 [1st Dept 2010]). … In any event, defendants have failed to make a sufficient showing that all of them would be immune from punitive damages, and there is no dispute that one of them — Tutor Perini Corporation — does not qualify as a public

Jarvis v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE POLICE

227 W. Va. 472 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

Postponing review of a ruling denying immunity to the post-trial stage is fruitless ... because the underlying objective in any immunity determination (absolute or qualified) is immunity from suit. … How could any court ever conclude that the general concepts of negligence do not constitute clearly established law?