Case law

White v. Bibb County, Georgia

28 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 7, 1998

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show (1) that Defendant God-bee violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … It is well settled in the Eleventh Circuit that “the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Michael A. Bolden, Sr. v. Al Alston, Superintendent, Lincoln Correctional Facility, Nathaniel Hayes, Sergeant and Edward Kirkland, Sergeant

810 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 28, 1987

Concluding that these rights had been clearly established by June 1982, the District Judge rejected appellants’ defense of official good faith immunity. … They contend that, even if they deprived Bolden of some due process rights, they did not contravene clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Peters v. Woodbury County

979 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Oct 25, 2013

In short, the answer to the second qualified immunity question on this claim, whether the right was “clearly established,” is “no.” e. … of the “qualified immunity” analysis.

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

Mattingly v. Mitchell

425 S.W.3d 85 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Jun 21, 2013

Although Prater involved a claim of absolute immunity, the rule is logically extended to a claim of qualified official immunity. … Our Supreme Court held teachers assigned to supervise a school-sponsored baseball practice were not entitled to qualified official immunity because the school had an established rule that children were required to wear batting

Blissett v. Coughlin

66 F.3d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 1995

In the context of the claims in this case, qualified immunity affords government officials a two-tier defense “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Consistent with their pretrial posture, Appellants made no further effort to establish a qualified immunity defense following the colloquy.

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

114 F. Supp. 3d 323 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 26, 2015

Gillock, the Supreme Court acknowledged its grant of “common-law absolute immunity from civil suit” to state legislators in Tenney v. Brandhove, but qualified its holding. Id. at 372 , 100 S.Ct. 1185 . … The state legislative privilege — like state legislative immunity — likewise may become qualified based on the nature of the claim at issue.

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

Jordan Jones v. George Solomon

90 F.4th 198 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 3, 2024

“To overcome an official’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the … Under binding case law, however, a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Larry E. Yowell v. Jerry P. Combs Andy Dalton Jay Henges John Powell Jerry J. Presley David Hurlbut

89 F.3d 542 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 14, 1996

On appeal, Yowell contends the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because his right to continued employment with the Department was so clearly established at the time of his demotion that the officials must … Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. 3 Harlow v.

Williams v. United States

348 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2017

In short, qualified immunity clearly obtains here. … Williams' rights were "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation.

Hines v. Proper

442 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2006

Qualified immunity extends to a government official if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”

Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee

290 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 27, 2003

Qualified Immunity Sullivan argues that even if he violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights summary judgment must be granted on the basis of qualified immunity. … 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

Ferreira v. Town of East Hampton

56 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 4, 2014

However, in holding that government actors enjoyed qualified immunity for conducting a war-rantless abatement of a public nuisance, the Second Circuit has held that Tyler did not clearly establish a warrant requirement to … Qualified Immunity Finally, Narvilas, Jilnicki, Schirrippa, Glogg, and Grenci assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Austin v. City of Pasadena

74 F.4th 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … The test for qualified immunity involves two steps: “first we ask whether the officer’s alleged conduct has violated a federal right; . . . second we ask whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at

Locurto v. Safir

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.

El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia and Mark Mendoza v. Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, K. M., L. M., C. M., M. M., and L. M.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

Sarah Molina v. Daniel Book

59 F.4th 334 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2023

In the face of a summary-judgment motion seeking qualified immunity, the district court ruled that the claims could proceed to a jury. … It could not have clearly established a First Amendment right to wear the bright green hats.

Stonefield v. Lopez

District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 29, 2019

“Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity, which shields public officials from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … In a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that: (1) a constitutional violation occurred; and (2) that the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established