Case law

Subryan v. Regents of the University of Colorado

813 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 19, 1993

Qualified immunity allows a public official to escape liability if his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … official violated the clearly established law.

Hubert Arturo Acevedo v. Alex Diaz de la Portilla

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2026

The qualified immunity test is a familiar one. … We now turn to the second element of qualified immunity, and we ask whether Acevedo’s rights were clearly established.

William G. Moore, Jr. v. Joseph B. Valder

65 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

Furthermore, it has not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right. 11 Accord *196 ingly, the postal inspectors’ qualified immunity defeats Moore’s malicious prosecution … Qualified immunity protects a government official who performs discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if he can show that his actions did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Quality Technology Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Co.

745 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 1, 1990

Qualified immunity standards are clearly set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Defendants “have qualified immunity unless plaintiff’s ‘rights were so clearly estab *1348 lished when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have clearly understood

Glenn v. Washington County

661 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 27, 2011

the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Smith, 394 F.3d at 703 (reversing district court’s grant of qualified immunity).

Cohn v. New Paltz Central School District

363 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 30, 2005

Even if the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established … Defendant Derry is not entitled to qualified immunity for this claim. Case law has clearly established the “class of one” selective enforcement claim alleged in this action. Vill. of Willowbrook v.

Susan Esquillan, Defendant/third-Party v. The Health Care Insurance Company, Third-Party

222 F.3d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 5, 2000

The district court then ruled that *120 even if the improper investigation did violate her constitutional rights, the defendants would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established … Thus, all of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for those acts. Furthermore, Ms.

PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner

603 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 5, 2010

The “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis ensures that governmental actors are given fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional before they are held liable for damages based on that conduct … ’ claims of qualified immunity. 2.

Marvin v. Fitch

126 Nev. 168 · Nevada Supreme Court · May 27, 2010

Generally, qualified immunity, 5 rather than absolute immunity, is sufficient to protect nonjudicial officers in the performance of their duties, id. at 617 , 55 P.3d at 425 (quoting Burns v. … Qualified immunity may also provide immunity from suit so long as the defendant’s actions were not in violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.

Evans v. Ball

168 F.3d 856 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 12, 1999

Hence, the restrictions were not a clearly established constitutional violation, and the allegation of seizure cannot abrogate qualified immunity. 1. … qualified immunity.

Wilkerson v. State

16 Brief Times Rptr. 394 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1992

The plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was “clearly established.” … Hence, we find no basis justifying penetration of the shield of qualified immunity afforded to these defendants. *1127 While the question of qualified immunity generally turns on objective factors, Harlow does not preclude

Miller v. Spiers

434 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 7, 2006

This can be provided in the form of either absolute or qualified immunity. The amount and type of immunity granted a prosecutor depends on what activity is challenged. … Qualified immunity awaits more specifics.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 28, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Chiu v. Plano Independent School District

260 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 24, 2001

We apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity. “First, we must examine whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right.” … FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS Under the first prong of our qualified immunity analysis, we must determine whether Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established right. See Evans v.

Choice L. Causey Henretta Denise Bradley v. City of Bay City John May Thomas Pletzke, Joseph E. Doyle Eric Sporman Ken Souser

442 F.3d 524 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2006

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … , and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” 2 Id.

Outley v. Moir

District Court, D. Arizona · May 21, 2021

Then, when analyzing qualified immunity, a court must determine whether: 5 “(1) the facts adduced constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) the 6 constitutional right was clearly established … App’x 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (granting qualified immunity to government officials who 11 included plaintiff’s juvenile records on a report disclosed to third parties because there was 12 no clearly established constitutional

Anela v. City of Wildwood

595 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 1984

The defendant next argues that immunity law developed in the § 1983 context entitles him to a qualified immunity. This argument, the court believes, has some merit. … It is difficult to say that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Pruitt v. West Virginia Department of Public Safety

222 W. Va. 290 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2008

to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Accordingly, under Chase Securities, Trooper Kane would enjoy immunity from personal liability for official acts if his conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known and

Chu v. Mississippi State University

901 F. Supp. 2d 761 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 3, 2012

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, courts consider (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct … Qualified immunity bars suit against state officials “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Slingluff v. State

131 Haw. 239 · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2013

Therefore, their actions were not protected by a qualified immunity. … Paderes are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Circuit Court did not err when it denied their motion for summary judgment. B.