Case law

Frye v. Hodges

839 F. Supp. 2d 843 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Dec 30, 2011

“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 … To overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff in a § 1983 case must show that the defendant’s action deprived the plaintiff of a protected constitutional right and that the right was so clearly established at the

Yorzinski v. Imbert

39 F. Supp. 3d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 7, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions” from civil damages liability as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The qualified immunity doctrine involves a two-step analysis: a plaintiff must plead “facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the

Quartararo v. Catterson

917 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 25, 1996

With respect to the three categories of defendants who now seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff alleges the existence of two distinct types of clearly established rights: (1) a clearly-established … a clearly established federal right.

Joseph Williams v. City of Sparks

112 F.4th 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … A municipality is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. See id.

Monroe v. Gould

372 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … "The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was 'clearly established'; and (3) even if the right was 'clearly

Musso-Escude v. Edwards

4 P.3d 151 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 17, 2000

is alleged. [22] Qualified immunity protects an official only for those acts done in *156 good faith. [23] In general, executive branch officials are afforded qualified immunity. [24] Where a state actor claims immunity … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or

Harris v. District Board of Trustees of Polk Community College

9 F. Supp. 2d 1319 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1998

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s ruling on the law enforcement officer defendants, saying that they were not entitled- to qualified immunity because “their conduct violated clearly established law … The Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to the university officials in Andre because the plaintiff did not allege that they violated any clearly established law. Id. at 6.

Powell v. Fugate

364 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold, requiring assessment of "(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was 'clearly established

Caceres v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

646 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2009

Notwithstanding the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, in the case of an arrest an officer may still establish qualified immunity under federal law by showing either that “it was objectively … Therefore, the only issue is whether Lieutenant Sangiorgi is entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding his violation of the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right — that is, whether Lieutenant Sangiorgi’

Haley v. City of Boston

657 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 19, 2011

If "it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established," a court may grant the requested immunity without undertaking the "essentially academic exercise" of ascertaining whether … The upshot, then, is that, by 1972, the relevant right was clearly established.

Ryan v. Mesa Unified School District

64 F. Supp. 3d 1356 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 5, 2014

Count I Goodman argues that Count I fails both prongs of the qualified immunity test. … prayer before softball games” is unconstitutional. 52 In sum, Goodman argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding “the intersection of public schools and religion is far from clearly established

Thomas Richard Brown v. Frank D'Amico

35 F.3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 12, 1994

Qualified immunity shields arresting officers from personal liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We hold that D’Amico is entitled to qualified immunity because this right was not clearly established in December 1986 when he applied for an arrest warrant (nor indeed is it clearly established even now).

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Belcher v. Paine

136 N.H. 137 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Aug 27, 1992

Accordingly, the Court will, in considering the absolute immunity issue, take the well-pleaded facts of the Writ as established. … The decision to indict, even when based on an incomplete investigation, is clearly within the scope of absolute immunity.

Buckley v. BARBOUR COUNTY, ALA.

624 F. Supp. 2d 1335 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 15, 2008

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the violation was “ ‘clearly established.’ ” Id. (quoting Saucier v. … Gamble thus fails the first prong of the qualified immunity test. The violation was also “clearly established,” placing Gamble on fair notice of an unconstitutional violation.

Kerns v. Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo County

707 F. Supp. 2d 1190 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Apr 12, 2010

They argued that, even if the right to exclude is clearly established, they were still entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from retaliation in the private property context is not clearly established … Wilkie that the plaintiff had a clearly established Fifth-Amendment right to exclude others from his property, so qualified immunity was inappropriate for retaliation for the exercise of that clearly established right.

McClendon v. May

37 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Feb 3, 1999

James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.1998) establishes the current test for qualified immunity in the Eleventh Circuit. … Finally, an unofficial opinion of a state attorney general, even if it had been issued before the conduct occurred, would not constitute clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.

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

Jackson v. Johnson

797 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, D. Montana · Jul 18, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government actor from a suit for damages if the actor could have reasonably believed his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … With that determination it is necessary to turn to the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, i.e., whether the right violated by Deputy Johnson was clearly established in the law as of June 10, 2009. b.

Harrison v. State

203 So. 3d 126 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · Dec 18, 2015

Absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language of the statute is conclusive. … We first note that Harrison is not entitled to any relief on his claim that he presented sufficient evidence during trial and after trial to establish that he was immune from prosecution.