Case law

Springer v. Seventh Judicial District Court

District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 9, 2024

“Qualified immunity ‘protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief.”); Yates v.

Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2026

Edwards to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. See Bailey, 843 F.3d at 480. … A right may be clearly established for qualified im- munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right;

Holeman v. City of New London

330 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively … Since a constitutional violation could be shown, the court must proceed to the qualified immunity inquiry and ask whether the right violated was clearly established. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Moore v. Hartman

644 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

Qualified immunity “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 would have … federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

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

Skinner v. Chapman

680 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 28, 2010

Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a deprivation exists, qualified immunity is appropriate where:(l) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct; (2) the defendant’s action was objectively reasonable

Mellott v. Sprague

334 F. Supp. 3d 916 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jun 15, 2017

In order to defeat a defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) Defendants conduct violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged … This right had been clearly established since, at the latest, 1990.

Krzyske v. Commissioner

548 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 26, 1982

Even if the Commissioner is entitled to only a qualified immunity, however, the test established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald protects the defendant in this action. … In Harlow the Supreme Court said that governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional

Ridpath v. Board of Governors Marshall University

447 F.3d 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 11, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, we assess whether the free speech claims would contravene clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Mellen v.

Roland Edger v. Krista McCabe

83 F.4th 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2023

Ca- sey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he arguable probable cause inquiry in a false arrest case is no different from the clearly established law inquiry in any other qualified immunity … Where we part ways with the district court is on the issue of arguable probable cause or the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Aguirre v. City of San Antonio

995 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether . . . the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Id. at 656 (citing Hope v.

Stucchio v. Tincher

726 So. 2d 372 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1999

Clearly this testimony is absolutely privileged. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992). Suppose the information was divulged not in court but in a pretrial deposition. … Clearly, the law before Fridovich established an absolute privilege for a statement made "that had some relation" to a judicial proceeding.

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

708 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officers “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 … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Estate of George Ex Rel. George v. Michigan

136 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 8, 2001

If no constitutional violation occurred, Defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Cassiopia Rhoads v. Erik Riddell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 2, 2026

Thus, if the violation of the Eighth Amendment standard was clearly established in 2019, then Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mays v. … Because it was clearly established that the Constitution required Defendants to do something, the Court correctly affirms the denial of qualified immunity.

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Jules Gassner v. City of Garland, Texas, M.L. Bates

864 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1989

The court defined this form of qualified immunity as follows: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Hence, the Court offered the following refinement of the Harlow qualified immunity test: [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized

State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase

232 Ariz. 265 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 17, 2013

“If the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues, the jury determines the facts and the court then determines whether those facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Chamberlain v. … Should the defendant fail to establish immunity, the state, of course, still must prove all elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.