Case law

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

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.

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

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

Doss v. Gilkey

649 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 28, 2009

The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because: a. … clearly established.

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 .

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;

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.

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.

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

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.

Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila

39 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 1999

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly—established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we find that Defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

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

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.