Case law

Chipman v. City of Florence

866 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 12, 1994

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and conducting oral argument, this court concluded that the defendant law enforcement officers had not violated clearly established law and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity … As the constitutional rights which the defendant law enforcement officers allegedly violated in this ease are not clearly established, those defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mitchell v. Parker

271 F. Supp. 3d 1364 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Sep 25, 2017

A plaintiff demonstrates that qualified immunity does not apply by showing “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” … Dowling contends that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support this claim and therefore Dowling could not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity.

William A. Newman, Ph.D. v. Nereu F. Kock, Jr., Jacky Yuk-Chow So, Dan R. Jones, and Ray M. Keck, III

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 6, 2008

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense to federal law claims that shields governmental officials performing discretionary functions from liability as long as their actions could reasonably be thought … that violated clearly established law.

Emmanuel v. King County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 21, 2020

Homchick’s failure to identify a protected liberty or property interest or an abuse of process also entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … point to facts that support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right) 22 (discussing Saucier v.

Negron v. City of New York

976 F. Supp. 2d 360 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 4, 2013

An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if … Whether the Constitutional Right Violated Was Clearly Established Even if their actions are found to have constituted unreasonable or excessive force, Marchesona and Pigott would still be entitled to qualified immunity if

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

Christina Romero v. Amanda Brown

937 F.3d 514 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2019

The court held that a violation of the right to family integrity was not clearly established in the context of a social worker investigation, entitling both Brown and Mouton to qualified immunity. … Those allegations do not establish that the officers violated clearly established law.

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

165 F. Supp. 3d 996 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 30, 2015

Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. … Defendants maintain that they are shielded by qualified immunity from these claims because Plaintiffs fail either to allege facts that establish actual injury or to show that the right of court access was clearly established

Cooper v. Bonaventura

470 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jan 25, 2007

To decide a defense of qualified immunity, I must first determine whether the agent has violated a particular constitutional right and if so, next proceed to decide whether that right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming that the seizure was not supported by probable cause, Bonaventura is still entitled to qualified immunity so long as the seizure did not violate a clearly established right of which an objectively reasonable

Couser v. Somers

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 1, 2019

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978) (establishing standard under § 1983 for when a municipality may be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employee(s)). A. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending

Roberts v. City of Shreveport

397 F.3d 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 13, 2005

established law.” … Louisiana applies qualified immunity principles to state constitu- tional law claims based on “[t]he same factors that compelled the United States Supreme Court to recognize a qualified good faith immunity for state officers

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

Arledge v. Sherrill

738 So. 2d 1215 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1999

Additionally, a qualified immunity generally applies to most acts of government officials. 2 Id. In Harlow v. … [[Image here]] It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must be “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense

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.

Langley v. Coughlin

709 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, depends upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time. … established at the time, and consequently, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their claim of qualified immunity.

Terry Lee Passmore Swann v. Southern Health

388 F.3d 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2004

The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. … This is particularly true in cases involving qualified immunity, where we must determine whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. 132 F3d. at 1367 (emphasis added) (citations omitted

Wilkins v. DeReyes

528 F.3d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 13, 2008

Qualified Immunity Turning to Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim, we agree with the district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly Established We now turn to whether the law regarding the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. If it was not, qualified immunity applies.

White v. Franklin

637 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · May 27, 1986

Qualified immunity is judged objectively by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Thus, if this court concludes that the individual defendants acting within their individual capacities violated such clearly established *616 constitutional or statutory rights, then qualified immunity does not bar this action

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.

252 Conn. 623 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 4, 2000

Peters, Jr., P.C., 1 to strike the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground of qualified immunity. … This appeal followed. 3 “In an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to strike, we operate in accordance with well established rules.

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.