Case law

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

Elliott v. Linnell

561 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2007

“The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry.” Id. “First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established right.” Id. (citation omitted). … “Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Id. (citation omitted).

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.

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

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.

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.

Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority

161 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1998

(en banc), cert. denied , — - U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 412 , 139 L.Ed.2d 315 (1997) (explaining that decisions from only these courts clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity). … immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

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).

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

Nichols v. Block

656 F. Supp. 1436 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 5, 1987

This qualified immunity is in the nature of an affirmative *1441 defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established constitutional rights of which a … Whether the officials may prevail in their defense of qualified immunity depends upon “the objective reasonableness of [their] conduct as measured by clearly established law.”

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.

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.

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

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.

Pamela S. Birkenholz v. Gary Sluyter, Jon P. Schrage and Larry L. Muir, Daniel Keniston and Woodhaven Learning Center

857 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 13, 1988

If such a violation would not have been apparent in light of available remedies, Birkenholz’ due process right is not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Because any violation could not have been apparent, Birkenholz’ due process right was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Aspen Exploration Corp. v. Sheffield

739 P.2d 150 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987

Second, Aspen asserts that our prior deci *153 sions establish a rule of qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. … See generally Comment, Immunity: Eliminating the Subjective Element from the Qualified Immunity Standard in Actions Brought Against Government Officials, 22 Washburn L.Rev. 577 (1983). *158 The one exception established to

Eddie Humes, Sr. v. Misty Jones

109 F.4th 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 31, 2024

Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray asserted qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment, which the district court 1 denied in relevant part. … Thus, the right that Humes asserts was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Lieutenant Jones and Deputy Gray’s motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.