Case law

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.

Escalera-Saldado v. United States

261 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 26, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine “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 … To do so, the plaintiff must show that (1) “defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and that (2) “the right was clearly established at the time.” Morales, 794 F.3d at 214 .

Johnson v. Perry

859 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 8, 2017

was clearly established at 9 the time of the challenged conduct." … Against a background of clearly 2 established law, the availability of qualified immunity "generally turns on the [defendant's conduct's] 3 'objective legal reasonableness.'" Anderson v.

Murphy v. Carroll

202 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2002

To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, this court follows a two-step analysis. … “Clearly established,” for pin-poses of qualified immunity analysis, means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Stidham v. Texas Commission on Private Security

418 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 28, 2005

Because we find that the defendants deprived Stidham of his clearly established rights in an objectively unreasonable manner, we vacate the district court’s grant of qualified immunity and remand the … are persuaded that, for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity, Stidham has properly demonstrated the violation of a clearly established right by showing that the defendants deprived him of his

Parrish v. City of Wilmington

3 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2014

Stanforth further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity (Id.). … Riley further argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because in his view the law is not clearly established as to what process is due when an employee resigns (Id.).

Andrew Cooperrider v. Maggie Woods

127 F.4th 1019 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … First, qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is less potent than absolute immunity.

Baker v. Chaplin

497 N.W.2d 314 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 11, 1993

Under this objective standard, officials are entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a government official sued for his or her actions in the line of duty is entitled to immunity from suit if a reasonable official could have believed that his or her actions were lawful, in light of clearly established

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

McLain v. Milligan

847 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, D. Maine · Feb 15, 1994

The relevant inquiry for assessing whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed” that Defendant’s actions were lawful “in light of clearly established law and the … This Court has delineated a two-step analysis for assessing a claim of qualified immunity: First, the court must consider the more general question of whether the law establishing the right allegedly violated was ‘clearly

DeAnzona v. City & County of Denver

222 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2000

If the defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff's version of the facts because the plaintiff has not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law, this Court may properly exercise … We hold that the district court erred by denying Brooks's motion for qualified immunity. DeAnzona had the burden of proving with specificity how Brooks violated Redd's clearly established right. See Tonkovich v.

Fletcher v. Town of Clinton

196 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

Qualified immunity analysis is two-pronged. "First, the court must establish whether the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged violation." St. … The charge of escape did not result in a violation of her clearly established constitutional rights, and the officers are, therefore, protected by qualified immunity. C.

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

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

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness’s death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

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.”

Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.

645 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 24, 2009

Qualified Immunity: Whether Clearly Established The right not to be arrested unless there is probable cause is clearly established. See Goff v. Bise, 173 F.3d 1068 , 1072 (8th Cir.1999); see also Walker v. … Qualified Immunity The MAC Defendants are deprived of qualified immunity if they violated the right not to be arrested without arguable *785 probable cause or, even if they did, that right was not clearly established.

Lipson v. Anesthesia Services, P.A.

790 A.2d 1261 · Superior Court of Delaware · Oct 3, 2001

Arguably, if ASPA could establish that it provides health care services (which clearly it does) and that it “follows a formal peer review process,” its governing body would qualify as a “professional review body” when engaged … Delaware clearly recognizes “a qualified privilege of employers to make communications regarding the character, qualifications, or job performance of an employee or former employee to those who have a legitimate interest

Savage v. County of Stafford, Va.

754 F. Supp. 2d 809 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 16, 2010

As noted above, in order to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity, the federal right alleged to have been violated must be clearly established at the time of the acts complained of such that an objectively reasonable official … It cannot be said that Sturdivant violated a clearly established federal right by arresting Savage.