Case law

Tavarez-Guerrero v. Toledo-Davila

573 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 16, 2008

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim shall not be dismissed. 5) Qualified Immunity We will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Toledo and Marvin. … Since the answer to all three prongs of qualified immunity test is in the affirmative, the Court finds that Plaintiff has overcome the qualified immunity defense raised by Toledo and Marvin. 6) Supervisor Liability Toledo

Daniel J. Leveto v. Robert A. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

B. 11 The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … See Brown, 922 F.2d at 1118-19 (recognizing that the clearly established requirement "may produce distressing results," but finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

Robert Trammell v. David Thompson

335 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2009

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … claim of qualified immunity.

Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Miller

456 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 1978

On the other hand, conduct falling within the investigative and administrative functions of these defendants is subject to a qualified immunity and they must establish their good faith in order to escape liability. … As such, he is entitled only to the qualified immunity of other executive officials, and he must establish his good faith to avoid liability. Again, this is an issue best resolved at trial.

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.

Prescott v. City of Meriden

80 Conn. App. 697 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 30, 2003

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … “The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Gardner v. Howard

109 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1997

Defendants appeal the qualified immunity portion of that ruling. … II. 8 Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 damage liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Russell v. Scott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The District Court concluded that Scott had not established his entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that his actions violated Russell’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights … Clearly Established Finally, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Scott’s conduct 12 We further note that,

Freeman, Dianna v. Johnson, Caleb

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 23, 2023

Generally, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were clearly established at the relevant time. … Because it is clearly established that probable cause cannot rest solely on a person’s presence at a suspected crime scene, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim for the purpose of defendants

Stanley v. Barone

210 Conn. App. 239 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jan 25, 2022

clearly established constitu- tional right. … Thus, in order to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity in the present case, the plaintiff was required to allege facts that would establish that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Eldridge v. Morrison

970 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 1996

Under this test, public official performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit has explained that [f]or 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

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka William Roth Kevin Anderson Dennis Warosh

365 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity,' state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate' clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Coffin v. Brandau

597 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Drawing on that precedent, we analyze whether the Deputies violated the Coffins’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and conclude that because they did not, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door. 15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 .

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

856 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1988

The basis for their claim of immunity was that Stoneking did not have a clearly established right to be free from the sexual abuse of Wright, a member of the school’s staff, that they were under no clearly established duty … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles government officials performing discretionary functions to immunity from liability for civil damages when their conduct “does not violate clearly established

Arias v. Amador

61 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2014

Qualified immunity shields 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 would have known … . *971 The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established

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.

Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v.

Bailey v. Ramos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established at the time it occurred. 54 Bailey, for his part, submits that the unlawfulness of Ramos’s takedown procedure was clearly established, … “[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of th[e] disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Joseph, 981 F.3d at 330 (emphasis added).

Lisa Amaechi v. Matthew West, and Bernard R. Pfluger Town of Dumfries

237 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

The district court denied West’s motion for summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity, reasoning that West’s search, as described by Amaechi, violated Amaechi’s clearly established constitutional rights … To that end, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional