Case law

Angela Borrell v. Bloomsburg University

870 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Ficca is entitled to qualified immunity as long as she does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional or federal right. Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier v. … And the district court cases cited cannot clearly establish law for qualified immunity purposes in any event. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 , 709 n.7, 131 S.Ct. 2020 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011).

Pahk v. Hawaii

109 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jul 25, 2000

On the section 1983 claims (Counts V, VI, and VII), qualified immunity bars claims against state officials in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional … The plaintiff bears the burden of proof that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Fanning v. Montgomery County Children & Youth Services

702 F. Supp. 1184 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1988

Mason argues that he violated no clearly established right of the plaintiffs, and is therefore free from liability even under the less protective cloak of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The remaining question with respect to Mr. Mason is whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right of which Mr. Mason should have been aware.

Veney v. Ojeda

321 F. Supp. 2d 733 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 15, 2004

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for alleged civil rights violations to the extent the officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If no constitutional violation is found, qualified immunity is clearly unnecessary, as plaintiffs underlying constitutional claim simply fails.

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.

Putnam v. Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 22, 2003

We will affirm a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity if the "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … clearly established.

Huertas Morales v. Agosto-Alicea

278 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 1, 2003

Qualified Immunity According to Defendants, the conduct of Juan Agosto Alicea is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because it was imminently 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

Kennedy Ex Rel. Gorton v. City of Ridgefield

439 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2006

immunity, and the issue appealed concerns whether the facts demonstrated a violation of clearly established law. … Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103,1107 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]e have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a clearly established

CHS Industries, LLC v. United States Customs & Border Protection

653 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity 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 would have known.”

Shattuck v. Town of Stratford

233 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 13, 2002

Even where the plaintiffs, federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … violate” clearly established constitutional rights).

Edwards v. Jolliff-Blake

907 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2018

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation." … We conduct this inquiry against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's repeated (and recent) reminders "not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality" and with the understanding that qualified immunity

Mullins v. Crouch

391 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 28, 2005

Qualified Immunity In this case, Crouch seeks judgment on the pleadings on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy immunity from suits for damages, provided their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

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.

William Wentworth Foster v. Mary Basham

932 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 16, 1991

Basham also contended she was entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Although subjective motive (or intent) is not relevant to the qualified-immunity analysis, the knowledge possessed by the defendant at the time the challenged action occurred is, along with the clearly established law as

Monroe v. Arkansas State University

495 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

qualified immunity and direct dismissal of the action. … Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for this affirmative defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established. Sparr, 306 F.3d at 593 .

Robbin Amanda Bayse v. Ted Philbin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2025

Although the magistrate judge acknowledged that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. … “In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Weg v. Macchiarola

995 F.2d 15 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages- As long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, they cannot be held liable.” … Where statutory language may be easily read to cover particular conduct, a prosecution based on that language does not lose immunity absent “clearly established” caselaw to the contrary.

Jesus Hernandez v. Unknown Named Agents, et

785 F.3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 24, 2015

That is the chore of the first prong of the qualified-immunity test, which we do not address. The alleged right at issue was not clearly established, under these facts, in 2010. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. … We hold unanimously that Agent Mesa has qualified immunity from this suit for a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation because he did not violate any clearly established rights flowing from that Amendment.

Oscar F. Sanchez Liliana Sanchez v. Charles Swyden, Inspector, Warren K. Hayward, Officer

131 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

We disagree, go no further than step one of the qualified immunity analysis, and conclude that Sanchez has not shown that the defendants deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. In Baker v. … CONCLUSION Finding that Sanchez has not shown that he has been deprived of a clearly established constitutional right, we hold that all defendants named in Sanchez’s § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

Rivera v. Fischer

655 F. Supp. 2d 235 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 18, 2009

Qualified Immunity The moving defendants also argue, in the alternative, that plaintiffs claims against them should be dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages resulting from the performance of discretionary official functions if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory