Case law

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

DePree v. Saunders

588 F.3d 282 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

First, if DePree’s speech was constitutionally protected, Saunders was entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Foley v. … “Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003).

Barber v. Guay

910 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, D. Maine · Nov 9, 1995

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must first allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Id. … Second, if the right is clearly established, qualified immunity will only be denied if a reasonable official should have known that the challenged conduct violated that established right.

(PC) Reed v. Racklin

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government actors from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 if 5 “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 14 254-55 (9th Cir. 1997) (in qualified immunity context, finding no clearly established right to be 15 free from feigned karate chops towards inmate’s body, including groin area).

Thomas v. Collins

860 S.W.2d 500 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jul 1, 1993

To meet this burden, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v. … Reviewing appellant’s pleading under this standard, his allegations are sufficient to allege that Collins violated his clearly established eighth amendment rights.

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

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

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

clearly established; and (3) raise[d] a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official would have known that his alleged conduct would have violated the plaintiff[s'] clearly established right." … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Browne v. Robb

583 A.2d 949 · Supreme Court of Delaware · Nov 5, 1990

The State Tort Claims Act grants, in part, general qualified immunity to certain state officials and employees. 10 Del.C. § 4001. … We have already recognized that a public defender is protected by qualified immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. See Vick v.

Williams v. Brown

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 4, 2022

Defendant Gulick argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not stated a constitutional deprivation and, even assuming that he did, the implicated right was not clearly established. … Qualified immunity requires a two-pronged analysis: “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of

Allen L. Fludd v. United States Secret Service Maurice Daugherty

771 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1985

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Myers v. City of Fort Wayne, Ind.

729 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 1990

There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v. … An official “would be entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time he acted, the law did not clearly establish that [the official] was prevented from discharging someone holding this particular position.” Wrigley v.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’

Nation v. State, Dept. of Correction

144 Idaho 177 · Idaho Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2007

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Next, did the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity violate a clearly established right of the party claiming the violation? Finally, was the conduct of the party asserting qualified immunity reasonable?

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … 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

Steven Gillman v. City of Troy, Mich.

126 F.4th 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 22, 2025

Qualified Immunity Green-Hernandez begins by contesting the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on her qualified immunity defense. … “A public official is entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the challenged conduct did not violate ‘clearly established . . . constitutional

Austin v. Redford Township Police Department

859 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2011

The qualified immunity objections The defendants’ fourth objection does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that the law concerning the use of Tasers on subdued suspects is clearly established. … The fact that defendant Pauli may have violated a clearly established constitutional right necessarily means that defendant Pauli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rogers v. Pocono Mountain East High School

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Martino v. Hogan

37 Mass. App. Ct. 710 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Dec 13, 1994

The defendants answered with denials and defenses including the defense of “qualified immunity.” … Finally, even were it assumed that the constitutional rule was “clearly established” and violated, so that qualified immunity did not attach, the defendants could be held individually liable for damages for the infractions

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Tanner

928 S.W.2d 731 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · Aug 21, 1996

Like Hullum and DPS, we use the term "qualified immunity” when referring to the federal defense and "official immunity” when referring to the state defense. 3 . … Furthermore, Hullum did not move for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the section 1983 claim.