Case law

D.A.R. v. R.E.L.

272 So. 3d 1030 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 7, 2018

This court has recognized the difference between absolute immunity, which defeats a suit at the outset, and qualified immunity, which depends on circumstances and motivations and often must be established by evidence at trial … are not always uniform in deciding whether absolute or qualified immunity applies."

Norwood v. Woodford

583 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2008

The defense 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 … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” a finding of qualified immunity is appropriate, as “qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly

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

Hall v. Jones

453 S.W.3d 674 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jan 15, 2015

The two-part test for judicial immunity established by Stump, 435 U.S. 349, requires that we determine whether the judge named by appellant in the complaint had jurisdiction to act on the in rem complaint filed in Miller … When the actions of a prosecuting attorney involve his role as an administrator or investigator, he is entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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).

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.

Tonja Ames v. King County

846 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 13, 2017

City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A defendant who appeals a denial of qualified immunity on the ground that his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, in any event, did not violate clearly established … IV “In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of

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 .

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.

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).

Moore v. Giorla

302 F. Supp. 3d 700 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity When a defendant in a § 1983 action claims qualified immunity, a court must first determine if the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory … Regarding the qualified immunity analysis, Defendant only contests whether the injury was sufficiently serious, and whether Plaintiff's rights were clearly established.

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.

Douglas v. Miller

864 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … clearly established at the time.”