Case law

Ferreira v. Westchester County

917 F. Supp. 209 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1996

Immunity Defense Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right — to be protected from warrantless searches absent probable cause — was clearly established.

Garcia v. Montford Unit

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 16, 2024

Motion on Qualified Immunity Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). … .”’); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

Engblom v. Carey

572 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1983

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. … established” at the time of the events in question and therefore that the defendants are protected by a qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment.

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken

Ralph Thomas v. Frank O. Gunter Karen Shortridge, Superintendent Robert Houston, Associate Superintendent

103 F.3d 700 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 8, 1997

operation of penal institutions, enjoy qualified immunity. … The proper inquiry in the present case, therefore, is whether the free exercise of religion within a penal setting is a clearly established right. It has been “clearly established” since Cruz v.

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.

J.R. v. Gloria

599 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 26, 2009

The second qualified immunity prong examines whether the contours of this right were clearly established in 1996. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … Even if this final parameter of the right was clearly established *202 in 1996, Defendants Gloria and Terry are still entitled to qualified immunity because, under the third and final prong, each would have an objectively

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Tellier v. Fields

230 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

of clearly established rights. … Judge improperly rejected defendants’ qualified, immunity defense because Tellier failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Hunsberger v. Wood

564 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 3, 2008

immunity analysis and answers the question of whether the right was clearly established. … immunity, but private parties do not have qualified immunity.

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).

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

34 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages, for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … That is certainly the case here. 16  The Court thus turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether it was clearly established, in June

Radwan v. Manuel

55 F.4th 101 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 30, 2022

immunity because such a right was not clearly established at the time of the scholarship’s termination. … In short, the district court concluded that the “lack of clearly established law under the Fraser standard” entitled Coach Tsantiris and AD Manuel to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Id. at 111.

Dr. Earl Evans v. W.H. "Sonny" Dillahunty and William E. Amos, in Their Official Capacities

711 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

As the Supreme Court held in Harlow , “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Moreover, “[r]eliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by references to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial

Bobby Williams v. Robert B. Greifinger, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Correctional Services

97 F.3d 699 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 15, 1996

Under the law of qualified immunity, govern- • ment officials may only be sued for violations of “clearly established” rules of federal law. Harlow v. … Summary judgment on the basis of a claim of qualified immunity is thus appropriate only if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in

Calderon v. State of Kansas

24 F. Supp. 2d 1138 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 22, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … “In analyzing qualified immunity claims, we first ask if a plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right at all, and then assess whether the right was clearly established at the time of a defendant’s actions

Brown v. City of Golden Valley

574 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … Our second inquiry in considering the denial of qualified immunity is whether the right violated was clearly established. Whether the facts alleged support such a claim is a legal question for the court to decide.

Derfus v. City of Chicago

42 F. Supp. 3d 888 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 2014

Qualified immunity requires a court to assess “the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 , 742 (7th Cir.2001) (“qualified immunity is dissolved * * * when the conduct is so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate clearly established rights

Williams v. Fedor

69 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1999

established,” *673 qualified immunity to the law enforcement officers was granted. … Although the right against self-incrimination is itself clearly established, Perschau is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity ‘[so long as his] decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.’