Case law

Riggs v. City of Pearland

177 F.R.D. 395 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 17, 1997

The Fifth Circuit has also developed a two-step process for the examination of a claim of qualified immunity. The first inquiry is whether Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Again, the defense of qualified immunity is a bar to denial of medical care claims unless Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law existing at that time

Patrick Atwater, Jr. v. Kelly H. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Oct 24, 2017

“The test for determining whether a defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity is the objective reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law; … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable

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.”

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.

Linscott

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2025

If the court can conclude either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted. … In response to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff simply argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity without citing any case that he claims shows Defendants violated clearly established

Louisiana Farms v. LA. Dept. of Wildlife

685 So. 2d 1086 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 1996

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Applying the foregoing principles to our qualified immunity analysis, the first question becomes whether the DWF officers' conduct in constructively seizing the Bartmess' entire farming operation violated "clearly established

Tejada Batista v. Fuentes Agostini

247 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 2003

ANALYSIS Defendants generally argue that as a matter of law the case should be dismissed because they are shielded from liability pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when they perform discretionary functions as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Cooney v. White

845 P.2d 353 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1992

The United States Supreme Court has firmly established that qualified immunity provides adequate protection for many of the duties required of a prosecutor. … In setting forth the appropriate test for qualified immunity, the court in Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1420-21 (footnote omitted) stated: [The prosecutor] will be shielded from liability of his "conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

Hambric v. Twilley

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 25, 2024

“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 … Because Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show that Sheriff Smith violated clearly established law, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 525. IV.

Brady v. Dill

24 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity There are two parts to any qualified immunity analysis. First, it must be determined whether the right asserted by the plaintiffs was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … The reason cited was that “the focus in the usual Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis is not whether it is 'clearly established' that an unreasonable search and seizure would violate the Constitution but rather whether

Zisk v. City of Roseville

56 Cal. App. 3d 41 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1976

. §§ 1983 and/or 1985) because the city councilmen are not immune from liability thereunder and because the pleadings establish that the councilmen clearly violated established constitutional rights of plaintiffs. … The court found them immune from liability, stating: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

160 F. Supp. 2d 891 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under § 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory … established law” for purposes of defeating qualified immunity.

Rabinovitz v. City of L. A.

287 F. Supp. 3d 933 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 2, 2018

Qualified immunity "shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity defense fails to bar the First Amendment claim.

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

K.W.P. v. Kansas City Public Schools

931 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

that [their] conduct violated a clearly established right.’” … not satisfy the ‘clearly established’ standard here

Rooni v. Biser

742 F.3d 737 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 4, 2014

“To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must address two issues: (1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established … clearly established.

Branch v. Tunnell

937 F.2d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 27, 1991

On October 3, 1988, Tunnell moved to dismiss Branch’s suit on grounds of qualified immunity, arguing that under the objective qualified immunity standard established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … Because a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity in a Bivens or § 1983 action alleging judicial deception turns on the ability of the plaintiff to establish that the defendant knowingly or recklessly misled the magistrate

John D. Stough v. Walter J. Gallagher

967 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1992

Stough also contends that Sheriff Gallagher’s actions violated clearly established due process law. V.DISCUSSION A. Qualified Immunity and the First Amendment The Supreme Court held in Harlow v. … ’s actions, and (2) whether the public official’s conduct violated that clearly established law.