Case law

Zimmerman v. Spears

428 F. Supp. 759 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 1977

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY The Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the Judicial Defendants and the record in SA-76-CA-152 clearly show that their actions were well within the scope of their judicial duties. … Even under this qualified good faith immunity, these defendants are immune from suit.

Lawrence J. Korb v. John F. Lehman, Jr. Everett Pyatt Melvyn R. Paisley, and Carl M. Smith

919 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 1991

It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v. … The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Roman Catholic Foundation v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

590 F. Supp. 2d 1083 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 16, 2008

The reason plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary relief is because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 The reason that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is because their view that the Establishment Clause … Such liability, in turn, depends on whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 4 .

Tessler v. Paterson

768 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2011

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her discretionary conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … a clearly established constitutional right.

Lynch v. City of Boston

989 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 9, 1997

A defense of qualified immunity ordinarily fails where the law that was violated was clearly established, “since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … depends on the concept of a “clearly established” right.

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Jones v. Cannon

174 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1999

As discussed, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions unless the officer has violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.

Johnson v. Myers

129 F.4th 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

It was clearly established law that a fatal shooting under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment. … Clearly Established Right Appellants insist that, even if Officers Myers and Beecroft violated Smith’s constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force, that right was not clearly established in the circumstances

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Cynthia Clayborn v. Dennis Struebling

734 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2013

“Qualified immunity protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages if they have not violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Examining qualified immunity, this court applies a two-part test.

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.

Dahly v. DCFS

876 So. 2d 1245 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jul 2, 2004

Qualified immunity from a federal civil rights claim means that government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Geoghegan, 702 So.2d 517, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (describing the two-step analysis of a qualified immunity defense).

Kinlocke v. Benton

257 F. Supp. 3d 1368 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 19, 2017

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified' immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … In sum, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kinlocke, there are sufficient allegations to show that Fox violated Kin-locke’s clearly established right to medical care, and hence Fox is not entitled to qualified

Duckworth v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

491 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2007

immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established”). … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis “is to ask whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.” See Saucier v.

Perry v. Lilly

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 6, 2023

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct in question.

Isbell v. Bellino

983 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 25, 2012

Due Process Claims and Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity inquiry requires further discussion. … Thus, absolute immunity is not applicable. C. Qualified Immunity. 1. Qualified Immunity Standard.

Thomas Burnside v. Nueces County, Texas

773 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 2014

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … And, the law is clearly established that such a retaliatory action, if proved, violates the First Amendment.

Brown v. City Of Oneonta

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

In addition, appellants claim qualified immunity on the ground that even if release of the list under these circumstances did violate appellees' FERPA rights, those rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident … 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. 67 In addition, Hartmark

Richard v. Hall

874 So. 2d 131 · Supreme Court of Louisiana · Apr 23, 2004

Revised Statute 9:2795B(1) clearly supports an interpretation that an owner, lessee or occupant qualifies for the immunity where his use of the premises is not principally for a commercial, recreational enterprise for profit … that determines the availability of the immunity provisions to a qualified owner.