Case law

Gurski v. State Police Dept.

242 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

McLean v. Gordon

548 F.3d 613 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 1, 2008

In considering a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the court makes two inquiries. … “If so, then [the court] determine[s] whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.” Flowers, 478 F.3d at 872 .

Derrick Dorrell Turner v. Arkansas Insurance Department, Mike Pickens

297 F.3d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 11, 2002

The issue presented on appeal is a narrow one: Whether, for qualified immunity purposes, it was “clearly established” on September 23, 1999, that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 conferred upon an at-will employee the right to be free from … To do so, in essence, would give these cases the force and effect of law on certain propositions in the narrow context of determining whether the law was "clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Prescott v. City of Meriden

80 Conn. App. 697 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 30, 2003

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … “The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Von Derhaar v. Watson

109 F.4th 817 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

“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 … “The second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002)).

(PC) Perez v. Smith

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 4, 2022

Qualified Immunity 20 The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from liability for 21 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

Spiller v. Harris County

113 F.4th 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 30, 2024

However, unique to the qualified immunity context, “to overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … Sergeant Lindsay is entitled to qualified immunity on Spiller’s excessive force claim.

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Mink v. Knox

566 F. Supp. 2d 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 12, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Elder v. … Whether the application of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to the Colorado criminal libel statute was clearly established under the circumstances of this case The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry requires

Miller v. City of Nederland by and Through Wimer

977 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1997

To prevail on a qualified immunity defense, the defendant must show that he did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Because Smith and Hamilton have raised the defense of qualified immunity, Miller must show, as a threshold matter, that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Asociación De Subscripción Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Flores Galarza

484 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 1, 2007

Second Prong: Constitutional Right was “Clearly Established” at Time of Violation “The second question [of the qualified immunity analysis] deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time … The qualified immunity inquiry recognizes that “[i]t is not always evident at the time an official takes an action that a clearly established right is involved.

Perez v. County of Westchester

83 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 2000

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages stemming from their performance of discretionary official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Indeed, “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1065 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

in a plea to the jurisdiction. 32 We held in Garcia I that “the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity” for suits brought against school districts under the TCHRA. 33 However, the Legislature has waived immunity … The District incorrectly contends that our opinion in Garcia I did not actually address the issue of whether the TCHRA clearly and unambiguously waives immunity for school districts.

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."

James Wilburn Feagley v. Bill Waddill, Superintendent, Abilene State School

868 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 4, 1989

In denying this motion, the district court determined that a cause of action under section 1983 had been asserted and that none of the defendants had established entitlement to qualified immunity. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), the Court further refined the principles of qualified immunity by holding that the right allegedly violated by the defendant’s conduct “must have been ‘clearly

Hummel v. City of Carlisle

229 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 2002

established right, qualified immunity cannot attach on summary judgment. 882 F.2d at 215-16 . … The ultimate, more particularized question in the qualified immunity context is whether Hummel had a clearly established right under the facts as he states them. This case falls into the realm of Brandenburg .

Navarro v. City of Riviera Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1353 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2016

qualified immunity should not apply because: (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … Even to the extent that facts exist capable of demonstrating a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and, thus, overcoming qualified immunity as to Sheriff Bradshaw in his individual capacity, amendment

Latson v. Clarke

249 F. Supp. 3d 838 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 20, 2017

A court deciding the applicability of qualified immunity must determine “whether a constitutional violation occurred” and “whether the right violated was clearly established.” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 385 . … Where a plaintiff “(1) 'allege[s] a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation,” a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. Evans v.

Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

324 F.3d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 8, 2003

The district court also held that the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was clearly established. Defendants filed this interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Law Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only if the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .