Case law

Webb v. Streeter

District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 22, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

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.

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.

Mitchell v. Luckenbill

680 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

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

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.

Johnson v. Northside Residents Redevelopment Council

467 N.W.2d 826 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Apr 9, 1991

Qualified privileges do not act as an immunity from suit, but rather as an immunity from liability for damages. … These issues clearly do not involve immunity and should not be reviewed in this procedural posture.

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.

Sweatt v. Blackman Township Officer Brent Doxtader

986 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 11, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … excessive force. 4 The Court finds that this right was clearly established.

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

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

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

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).

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