Case law

Tague v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

390 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 25, 2005

the clearly established right to work. 42 Plaintiff then cites Harlow v. … Qualified immunity’s protection exists as long as the official’s conduct violates no “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Schwartz v. Pridy

874 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 18, 1995

Government officials performing discretionary functions are provided with qualified immunity from a civil rights damages action if their challenged conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires a determination of whether the constitutional right in question was “clearly established.” Id.

Garner v. Steger

69 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 2014

Third, defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights. … The court next turns to the second prong of qualified immunity — whether the employment action here violated Garner’s clearly established rights.

Sherin v. Department of Human Resources

229 Ga. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 4, 1997

(a) “Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In this factual setting, it cannot be said that Reid’s failure to tell the Sherins about the masturbation was objectively unreasonable so as to deprive her of qualified immunity.

Maltby v. Winston

36 F.3d 548 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1994

Inspector Winston’s Qualified Immunity We begin our evaluation of the qualified immunity issue by setting forth Mr. Maltb/s allegations against Inspector Winston. In his complaint, Mr. … City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir.1994) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right.”); Apostol v.

Maher ex rel. Estate of Maher v. Oklahoma ex rel. Tourism & Recreation Department

165 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Feb 29, 2016

the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.’ ” Wood v. … Qualified Immunity The Court must still consider whether Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to overcome Defendant Young’s defense of qualified immunity.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 513, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 835 Mary Ann Carlo v. City of Chino, and Officer Hector Guerra

105 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Further, the court held that even if such a right does exist, it was not clearly established when Carlo was arrested; and, therefore, Guerra was entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity asks what law was clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred. In 1991, the Helms test was the clearly established law.

Maritza Amador v. Bexar County

952 F.3d 624 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

Flores’s Fourth Amendment Right Was Clearly Established The second question in the qualified immunity analysis is whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from shooting Flores in these circumstances … We cannot “‘define clearly established law at a high level of generality,’” id.

Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health

632 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

The district court held, in the alternative, that “Clairmont’s First Amendment right was not so ‘clearly established’ as to preclude qualified immunity for Ms. Wilson.” … SOUND MENTAL HEALTH immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. “If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Gyadu v. Frankl

62 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 23, 1999

Individuals are qualifiedly immune insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . … Thus, as to those remedies, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity. The motions to dismiss will be granted, on grounds of qualified immunity, as to the allegations of violations of 42 U.S.C.

Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Suffolk County

87 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 20, 2015

Even if a state actor deprives an individual of his constitutional rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields that government official from civil liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In particular, the Second Circuit has held that courts should cloak defendants with qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage "only 'if the court finds that the asserted rights were not clearly established, or if the

Edward v. GEC, LLC

67 V.I. 745 · Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · Aug 1, 2017

However, it is equally “well-established that a party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” *756 Gov’t of the V.I. v. … Additionally, courts in other jurisdictions have repeatedly interpreted similar workers’ compensation immunity statutes as not establishing limits on subject-matter jurisdiction, but simply codifying affirmative defenses

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children

Closs v. Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District

874 S.W.2d 859 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 12, 1994

Government officials enjoy qualified good faith immunity from liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … of their due process rights. *874 As for the individual school district appellees, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity when performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Jerald Davis v. William Owens

973 F.2d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

The parties, however, assert that this court reviews a district court’s denial of qualified immunity under the clearly erroneous standard enunciated in Hughes v. … Qualified Immunity Public officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Hulen v. Yates

322 F.3d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 4, 2003

Hulen received all process which is due, (2) Dean Costello was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established. Even assuming that Dr. … Qualified Immunity Government officials who perform discretionary government functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of

Robert Shawn Treff v. Kerry Galetka, Individually and as the Mailroom Supervisor at the Utah State Prison

74 F.3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 10, 1996

Galetka was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that prisoners had a First Amendment right to have their outgoing mail processed for delivery by the United States Postal Service, absent … Galetka’s qualified immunity defense, we first conclude that a prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts is clearly established. Nordgren v.

Fabrikant v. French

691 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

arguendo that the SPCA investigators were state actors, they would be entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Analysis “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutorily or constitutional rights of

Dixon v. Bannister

845 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 25, 2012

Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show a clearly established right to receive cosmetic dental services. … Plaintiff therefore has failed to demonstrate a clearly established right and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Garlanger v. Verbeke

223 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to