Case law

Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami

382 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 11 We recall that probable cause requires that “‘ … “Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id.

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.

Salas v. Carpenter

980 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 1992

IV As sheriff, Carpenter is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that he violated clearly established constitutional law. Anderson v. … Since qualified immunity turns on whether a defendant violated a clearly established right, a "necessary concomitant" to that decision is determining "whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation

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.

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.

Kjellsen v. Mills

517 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity protects public employees performing discretionary functions1 from the burdens of civil trials and from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was “clearly established” on the date of the alleged violation.

olsen v. barre

Vermont Superior Court · Mar 1, 2024

Qualified official immunity The Town argues that, regardless whether Mr. Frey may have operated his cruiser negligently, his conduct is protected by qualified official immunity. … The Vermont Supreme Court appears to have clearly ruled that police officers responding to emergency calls are, by statute, not entitled to qualified immunity, and are potentially liable for recklessness, though not negligence

Browne v. Robb

583 A.2d 949 · Supreme Court of Delaware · Nov 5, 1990

The State Tort Claims Act grants, in part, general qualified immunity to certain state officials and employees. 10 Del.C. § 4001. … We have already recognized that a public defender is protected by qualified immunity under the State Tort Claims Act. See Vick v.

Anastasio v. Planning Board of West Orange

197 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 1984

Since the trial court at the motion to dismiss the complaint had held that the affirmative defense of qualified immunity was available, the next issue to confront the court is the one dealing with qualified immunity. … It then became the task of the Supreme Court to set guidelines for defining the scope of qualified immunity. The guidelines for the scope of qualified immunity were established in the case of Wood v.

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Patrick v. Lewis

397 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 28, 2005

Defendants argue that Officers Lewis and Wilson are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the seizure and booking of Patrick because their conduct was reasonable and there is no clearly established right to forced … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test, they would be unable to satisfy the “clearly established” prong. Cf. Davis v.

B.R. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, etc.

West Virginia Supreme Court · May 14, 2018

Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court’s finding that “[p]leading simple negligence, without a violation of a clearly established right, is insufficient to overcome qualified immunity.” … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

McGRATH v. GILLIS

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

"Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." … Id. 11 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Thornton v. City of Macon

132 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. … It is clearly established that the use of excessive force in carrying out an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Graham 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;

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Joyner v. Greiner

195 F. Supp. 2d 500 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2002

POINT III DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suits arising from performance of their discretionary functions so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly … Whether an offi *508 cial may invoke qualified immunity “generally turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” when the action was

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police

26 F. Supp. 3d 824 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 13, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. … Qualified immunity for the deficient plan claim.

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.