Case law

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.

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

State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase

232 Ariz. 265 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 17, 2013

“If the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues, the jury determines the facts and the court then determines whether those facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Chamberlain v. … Should the defendant fail to establish immunity, the state, of course, still must prove all elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

North

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2025

App’x 490, 493 (9th 4 Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding defendants were entitled to 5 qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that depriving prisoner of a 6 mattress or bed … Mandeville, 706 F.3d 7 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it 8 was not clearly established that mattress deprivation for seven days violated Eighth 9 Amendment

Estate of George Ex Rel. George v. Michigan

136 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 8, 2001

If no constitutional violation occurred, Defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Griess v. Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e,, whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Lunini v. Grayeb

395 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

Appellants now appeal that ruling on the narrow question whether Lunini's equal protection rights were indeed "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time of the alleged incident. I. … The appellants' appeal now comes before this Court, presenting a single narrow legal issue: whether the district court erred in ruling that Lunini's equal protection rights were "clearly established" for qualified immunity

Michael Seals-Brown v. Jeffrey Llopis

678 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2017

qualified immunity related to their enforcement of those conditions. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Jules Gassner v. City of Garland, Texas, M.L. Bates

864 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1989

The court defined this form of qualified immunity as follows: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Hence, the Court offered the following refinement of the Harlow qualified immunity test: [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under 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 statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Monica L. Moore v. Gwinnett County, and Xyz Company, and John Doe, Jointly and Severally, J.O. Meadows

967 F.2d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1992

According to this doctrine, “public officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified [or good faith] immunity from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … On the basis of that analysis, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion and find that qualified immunity clearly attaches to Officer Meadows’s challenged conduct. I.

Amore v. Novarro

610 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The district court concluded that Novarro was not entitled to qualified immunity: Amore had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest, and it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Whether the “objectively reasonable” inquiry is framed as part of the “clearly established” inquiry, or apart from it, does not affect the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis here. 9 *163 III.

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

Williams v. CITY OF FRANKLIN, TENN.

586 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Nov 18, 2008

If the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, the second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the violated right was clearly established. Id. … was clearly established); Boger v.

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’

Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines Co.

439 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 28, 2006

specific,” and therefore our rejection of qualified immunity in that case was “based on clearly and narrowly articulated Fourth Amendment principles.” … The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on both claims.

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

297 F.3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 18, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … And because we conclude that there was no violation of a clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.