Case law

Glass v. Mayas

794 F. Supp. 470 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 1992

in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Gilley, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (where the defense of qualified immunity is involved, the initial inquiry should focus on whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Taylor v. City of New York

269 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 23, 2003

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first “allege a violation of a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … Since plaintiff has plainly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Curry v.

Aversa v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

And a federal official is qualifiedly immune from suit for an alleged constitutional tort if his "conduct [did] not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a -3- 3 reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity, however, must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the alleged violation -- "implicit in the Harlow formulation . . . is a temporal dimension: the ______ right must have been clearly

State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. The Honorable Kenneth D. Ballard, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanwaha County, and Hisel Bailey, and West Virginia Attorney-General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and Nathan R. Lyle, in his Individual Capacity, and in his Capacity as an Employee of the West Virginia Attorney-General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit v. Hisel Bailey

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2023

Ed. 2d 272 (2001) (establishing that qualified immunity may only be overcome if the facts alleged “show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right”). … When discretionary acts are the basis for a claim of liability, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established and reasonably known rights or laws have been violated, or the subject conduct is fraudulent, malicious

Morris v. Jackson

353 F. Supp. 2d 1199 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 10, 2005

However, qualified immunity does extend to this decision. … Qualified immunity protects § 1983 defendants from liability for injury arising from discretionary acts as long as the acts do not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Basile v. Elizabethtown Area School District

61 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 1999

The Supreme Court established the standard for qualified immunity in Harlow v. … (a) were clearly established.

Falto de Roman v. Municipal Government of Mayaguez

267 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 3, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … which bear on the issue of qualified immunity”).

Bouye v. Marshall

102 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 21, 2000

“Qualified immunity shields government officials executing discretionary responsibilities from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) Marshall violated a federal constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Santamorena v.

Davis v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512

335 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the alleged violation, the law did not clearly establish that reassigning plaintiff to teach at SMW constituted adverse … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must show that on the facts of this case, the law clearly established that the reassigning her to teach at SMW constituted adverse employment action.

Brenda Cook v. Amos Taylor

Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Feb 22, 2021

“Waiver is a matter of law where the material facts and circumstances are undisputed or clearly established.” Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Hampton, 227 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Bott v. … 9 judgment based upon a qualified immunity affirmative defense.

Dominguez v. Correctional Medical Services

555 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 17, 2009

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly' established statutory … Clearly Established Right “For a right to be clearly established, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right.’ ” Feathers

Pindell v. Wilson-McKee

60 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Aug 17, 1999

IV The standard for consideration of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is as follows: Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Alexander v. Newman

345 F. Supp. 2d 876 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Nov 22, 2004

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim. … “Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Goad,

Nevarez v. Dorris

135 F.4th 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2025

Thus, no law clearly established the Fourth Amendment violation alleged by Plaintiffs at the time the warrants were sought, so the Troopers are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The majority concludes that Julie is unable to show a clearly established right under the second prong of qualified immunity.

Wilbur Barnes v. Tony Wright

449 F.3d 709 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 2, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[T]he Supreme Court [has] held that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Pratt Ex Rel. Estate of Pratt v. Harris County

822 F.3d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 3, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … “In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case

Moye v. Selsky

826 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity The standards for invoking the qualified immunity defense in the Second Circuit are well established. … Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. Weg v.

Wood County v. Rivers

51 S.W.3d 626 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 29, 2000

plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. … Thus, we address the narrow issue of whether their actions violated clearly established law. In determining the applicability of qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim, we engage in a two-step inquiry.