Case law

Dennis v. Board of Education

21 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2014

immunity. 3 School officials *503 performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity — they are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent “ ‘their conduct does not .violate clearly established statutory … was ‘clearly established’ at the time of its violation.”

Hassan Shabazz v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Commissioner, and Harold J. Smith, Superintendent

852 F.2d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 27, 1988

The defendants’ answer alleged as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that damages were barred by qualified immunity and by the Eleventh Amendment. They moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … This court recently reiterated that qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Zamora v. City of Belen

383 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 27, 2005

Having raised the defense of qualified immunity, Zamora must come forward with evidence establishing that a constitutional violation occurred, and, if so, that the law is clearly established. … Because Zamora has not established a constitutional violation or, even assuming a constitutional violation, that the law is clearly established, Valdez is entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. V.

State v. Antonich

694 P.2d 60 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1985

Clearly, Wyoming’s Preference Act offends the privileges-and-immunities clause unless a close link exists between valid reasons for the Act and the discrimination practiced. … Since the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to the state’s valid reasons for discriminatory treatment, we affirm the Act’s validity under the test established in Toomer v.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

921 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 5, 2013

constitute.a violation of clearly established law.” … The question for the Court is whether the rights were clearly established to a reasonable person. The Court concludes they were, and denies qualified immunity.

Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police

71 F.3d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 22, 1995

The officers contend that the district court erred because they are shielded from Orsatti's claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 7 Because we find that the undisputed material facts of record establish that it was … Finding that the right at issue was clearly established, however, does not end the court's inquiry. Nor does the court's decision turn merely on whether the official violated that clearly established right.

Michael A. Galvan v. Giles Garmon

710 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 1983

Appellant appeals, claiming that appellees are protected only by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity, as redefined by the Supreme Court in Harlow , permits state officers to be subjected to suits only if the officials’ conduct clearly violated an established statutory or constitutional right of which a

Boyer v. City of Mansfield

3 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 21, 1998

Whether or not qualified immunity exists in a given case is a legal question for the court, unless there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant committed acts that would violate a clearly established … unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Pettus v. McGinnis

533 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 11, 2008

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … immunity was limited to whether right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident, and concluding that it was not).

James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander, James T. Martin, Jr. v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Richard Xander

812 F.2d 1425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 1987

(footnotes omitted); Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (defendant entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity plea unless plaintiff states a claim of violation of clearly established law). … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 23 The "clearly established law" and "objective reasonableness" facets of current qualified immunity doctrine tug in opposite directions where, as here, the "clearly established

Flint ex rel. Flint v. Kentucky Department of Corrections

270 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2001

The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory … violating a clearly established right of Flint’s.

Ryan Ferguson v. John Short

840 F.3d 508 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2016

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would know. Id. … We therefore have jurisdiction to review reasoned denials of qualified immunity and failures or refusals to rule on qualified immunity.

Argueta v. Jaradi

86 F.4th 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 17, 2023

The qualified-immunity inquiry has two parts. … Once an officer pleads qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the officer violated the plaintiff’s clearly established federal rights. Estate of Davis v.

Ernesto Nunez v. Luiz Izquierdo-Mora, Etc.

834 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 30, 1987

not “clearly established.” … Thus, it was not clearly established that this position was protected from political discharge. The judgment of the district court in respect to the issue of qualified immunity is Reversed. 1 .

Evenstad v. State

178 Ariz. 578 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 5, 1993

We agree with appellants that the qualified immunity provisions of A.R.S. section 12-820.02 do not apply to the duty of MVD to prescribe rules and regulations. … Clearly, MVD may be held liable for the grossly negligent issuance of drivers’ licenses. See § 12-820.02(5); Bird, 170 Ariz. at 23 , 821 P.2d at 290 (dicta) (qualified immunity applies to issuance of driver’s license).

Perez-Morciglio v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

820 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, D. Nevada · Oct 25, 2011

Plaintiffs also have established their rights were clearly established. … Because the qualified immunity inquiry is entwined with the merits, genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Scott and Schaier are entitled to qualified immunity.

Salvato Ex Rel. Estate of Salvato v. Miley

790 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2015

We affirm the denial of Miley’s motion for qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings. … Miley Is Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity.

Morgan Hansen v. Thomas Black

872 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

To defeat summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Hansen must point to facts showing both that she suffered a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was clearly established at the time of … Even assuming a constitutional violation, Trooper Black is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

James v. City of Birmingham

926 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 19, 2013

Qualified immunity “offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … that were allegedly violated were clearly established.