Case law

Spivey v. Elliott

41 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 1995

The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if it is determined that the legal precedents do not reveal that the defendants violated "clearly established … The opinion is fully reaffirmed, however, on the holding that there was no constitutional duty clearly established at the time of the sexual assault, so the defendant officials were properly entitled to qualified immunity

Doe v. Hazard

152 F. Supp. 3d 859 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jan 15, 2016

The -plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, O’Malley v. … The Court also finds no binding case law that any of Simpson’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Supreme Video, Inc. v. Schauz

808 F. Supp. 1380 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 14, 1992

On the other hand, 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 factual wrinkle.” … immunity defense, Supreme Video must show that the defendants’ conduct violated certain constitutional rights that were clearly and particularly established at the time of the seizure.

Weaver v. Brenner

40 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 26, 1994

Clearly Established Right 23 The threshold issue in deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity is, as noted, whether the federal right was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred … the relevant rights to have been clearly established in 1989 is affirmed.

Jones v. Yanta

610 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio *43 late clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Jordan v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

881 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1995

The court also determined, however, that the prison guard was entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner’s legal right was not “clearly established” at the time the action was taken. … established” to strip defendant Fowler of qualified immunity.

Lopez Quinonez v. PUERTO RICO NAT. GUARD

488 F. Supp. 2d 112 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 18, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, of which … We have used a three-prong analysis for evaluating qualified immunity claims.

Arzabala v. Weems

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 31, 2023

When a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity … .”); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

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.

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 .

Young v. Keohane

809 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

In some cases, the qualified immunity issue may also turn on “the complementary question whether defendant had a clearly established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v. … What is “clearly established” law for qualified immunity purposes, however, commands only some, “not precise factual correspondence between relevant precedents and the conduct at issue.” Ryan, 860 F.2d at 1208 .

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

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;

Mayronne v. Vaught

94 La.App. 4 Cir. 2140 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1995

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their Rconduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity does not act as an absolute bar, but rather as a threshold over which a plaintiff must pass to continue litigation.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.