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

Fairman v. Konteh

361 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If so — if the constitutional right was clearly established, the defendant cannot maintain the defense of qualified immunity. C.

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

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

Austrian v. Burlington

Vermont Superior Court · Aug 13, 2024

“The outcome of the inquiry depends on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Id. … Donovan, 2012 VT 27, 1 6 n.2, 191 Vt. 412 ("The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.' .

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.

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

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.

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.

City of Prosser v. Teamsters Union Local 839

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2022

Martin, 195 F.3d 1208, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the relevant law was “clearly established” in the post-October 1994 time frame for purposes of defendant’s claim of qualified immunity); cf. Sampson v. … and by officials acting under color of state law. 7 Article I, section 12 states: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities

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.

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.

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

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

Vogt v. McIntosh County Board

98 F.4th 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Even though Plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right, Defendant may still receive qualified immunity if the right alleged was not clearly established … Thus, controlling precedent clearly established Plaintiff’s violated right at the time of the violation and Plaintiff has satisfied both requirements to defeat a claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Woods v. White

689 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 27, 1988

The Court has carved out a qualified immunity for government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Therefore, the defense of qualified immunity is not available to defendants. See Forrester v.

Ex Parte Sawyer

876 So. 2d 433 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 5, 2003

and the § 1983 claim against her on the basis of qualified immunity. … and qualified immunity.

Crawford v. Columbus State Community College

196 F. Supp. 3d 766 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 2016

Qualified Immunity The defendants’ qualified-immunity argument similarly lacks merit. 3 Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established law supporting Crawford’s attempt to assert an age discrimination claim … Accordingly, the Court will only address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether that right was "clearly established.”

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.

Burnett v. Bottoms

368 F. Supp. 2d 1033 · District Court, D. Arizona · May 2, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from Plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … If the right is not clearly established, the individual public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. Thompson v.