Case law

Owens v. Colburn

860 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

"Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages ... as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Mozzochi v. … It also seems that once you have determined the need for the defense of [qualified immunity], ... the officer has acted unreasonably ... and has violated clearly established law.”) see also Graham, 490 U.S. at 399 n. 12,

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.

Hernandez v. Hines

159 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 29, 2001

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless the Plaintiffs demonstrate that they violated clearly established constitutional law. Schultea v. … The constitutional rights alleged to be violated *386 are “clearly established” for the purposes of evaluating qualified immunity.

Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Edwards v. Gilbert

867 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1989

Once a defendant advances a defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to summary judgment unless “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions_” Mitchell … established” for purposes of qualified immunity at the time of Molbert’s death.

Briaheen Thomas v. Tice

943 F.3d 145 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 12, 2019

“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 conduct.” … As the Majority notes, qualified immunity does not shield a government official where she has “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Reichle v.

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.

Monica L. Moore v. Gwinnett County, and Xyz Company, and John Doe, Jointly and Severally, J.O. Meadows

967 F.2d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

According to this doctrine, “public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified [or good faith] immunity from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … On the basis of that analysis, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion and find that qualified immunity clearly attaches to Officer Meadows’s challenged conduct. I.

Gale v. Storti

608 F. Supp. 2d 629 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly … “Unless 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.

Linlor v. Polson

263 F. Supp. 3d 613 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 11, 2017

In evaluating whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established … of qualified immunity.”

Lavoy Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol

2 F.4th 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from personal liability if his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Quraishi v. … “[T]he issue for immunity purposes is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause, that is, whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly established right.” Schaffer 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.

24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Cannella

139 A.D.3d 717 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 2016

The complaint does not allege that Fitzsimmons undertook any actions that violated “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware” (Zalaski v City of Hartford, 723 F3d 382, 388 … Therefore, the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Fitzsimmons, based on the principle of qualified immunity (see Vincent v Yelich, 718 F3d 157, 170 [2d Cir 2013]; Scott v Fischer

Fields v. Abbott

652 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

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 … due process right that Fields asserts was clearly established when the events in this case took place.

Griess v. Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e,, whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

902 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … “When . . . a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense . . . [t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established . . .

Babcock v. State

116 Wash. 2d 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1991

Lack of malice is necessary but not sufficient to establish qualified i immunity under Guffey . Caseworkers cannot claim even a qualified immunity when they fail to follow statutory procedures. … We do not think that ex parte orders can establish quasi-judicial immunity for those carrying them out. Ex parte orders do not offer sufficient procedural protections to warrant the establishment of absolute immunity.

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Est of La'Mello Parker v. MS Dept

140 F.4th 226 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 6, 2025

Coon therefore cannot provide the clearly established law necessary to overcome qualified immunity. 58 Plaintiffs also cite Grandstaff, but it, too, is distinguishable. … established at the time of the incident—and qualified immunity applies.

Webb v. Streeter

District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 22, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.