Case law

Barry v. Whalen

796 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 22, 1992

Determination of a federal official’s entitlement to the protection offered by qualified immunity involves an inquiry into whether the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Under this standard, Barry could prove that an official has violated his rights, but the defendants could nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity if those rights were not clearly established or if a reasonable person

Aldarondo-Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 2, 2004

Qualiñed Immunity Inquiry The qualified immunity doctrine protects civil servants from suit and liability arising from the performance of their duties “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … The Court begins with the first prong of the qualified immunity test: whether Plaintiffs can establish that a particular defendant violated their constitutional rights.

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.

Bardzik v. County of Orange

635 F.3d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

We have the option to address only the clearly-established step of the qualified immunity analysis. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 . … Because we decide that Bardzik was a policymaker as Reserve Division Commander, we need not address the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 818 .

Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

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

Gray v. Cummings

917 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2019

Cummings has invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … Thus, a government official may invoke the defense of qualified immunity when his actions, though causing injury, did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

KRL v. Moore

384 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2004

However, a prosecutor can still perform “police investiga-five work” after probable cause has been established, for which only qualified immunity would apply. … If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Harris v. New York State Education Department

419 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 6, 2006

, as long as Congress’s intent to do so is expressed clearly and the state actually waives its immunity through an intentional relinquishment of a known right. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Harris must show that (1) he has a disability for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit

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.

Williams v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation. … of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity ifthe right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of the violation, February 22, 2014.

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

Richardson v. U.S. Department of Interior

740 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Qualified immunity insulates officials from personal liability when their alleged tortious conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … Violations of “Clearly Established” Right In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly

Michael A. White v. Madeline Holmes Charles Rosenkoetter

21 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 18, 1994

In their motion for summary judgment, Holmes and Rosenkoetter argued they did not violate any clearly established laws and are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 In a supplemental motion for summary judgment, the defendants … is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Martinez v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

300 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 25, 2002

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 554; and whether Laura Martinez has shown violation of a clearly established constitutional right, thereby depriving the three individual Defendants of qualified immunity. … To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply a well-established, two-step analysis: whether the official violated a clearly established constitutional right; and, if he

Ellsberg v. Mitchell

670 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1984

on the Supreme Court’s new qualified immunity test enunciated in Harlow v. … Harlow disposed of the “subjective” aspect of qualified immunity and held that courts should examine only the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to ‘clearly established’ law.”

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.

Livingston v. Luken

151 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 26, 2005

“According to the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … established federal law so as to overcome Appellants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Keefer v. Durkos

371 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all of the allegations of the Complaint. Defendants’ Brief, p. 19. … Therefore, the Plaintiff possessed a clearly established right to procedural due process in her termination by virtue of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. Qualified immunity is denied as to Count II. .