Case law

Opinion Number

Louisiana Attorney General Reports · Nov 17, 2003

The defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the beginning of discovery if the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim of violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … Further, the defendants have clearly carried their burden of pleading qualified immunity.

Closs v. Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District

874 S.W.2d 859 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 12, 1994

Government officials enjoy qualified good faith immunity from liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … of their due process rights. *874 As for the individual school district appellees, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity when performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate clearly established

Walker v. Schult

717 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 23, 2013

was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. … If an official's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, or if the official reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate such a right, then he is protected by qualified immunity.

Sisinia Pro v. Ronald Donatucci. Ronald Donatucci, Register of Wills

81 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1996

As we summarized in In re City of Philadelphia Litig.: If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent … to qualified immunity.

Beck v. Wilson

377 F.3d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 29, 2004

violate clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Hurt v. United States

914 F. Supp. 1346 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Feb 14, 1996

established" as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. … We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected ‘liberty’ interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.

Garlanger v. Verbeke

223 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials “from suits seeking damages under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Robinson v. Ash

374 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 18, 2019

Defendant therefore does not receive the benefit of the arguable-probable-cause standard used to assess whether the right was "clearly established," the second step in the qualified immunity analysis. See Poulakis v. … App'x 523 , 526 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the "arguable probable cause" inquiry is part of the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity).

Currier Ex Rel. Estate of Juarez v. Doran

23 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 21, 1998

In addition, however, Gonzales and Robbins maintain they violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Discussion A. … When a qualified immunity defense is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff assumes the burden of showing the defendant violated clearly established law. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir.1997).

State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Sherard

36 N.C. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 1978

Contending that prosecutorial immunity may be only “qualified,” or malice-destroyed, defendant relies on the following language in State v. … Swanson’s grant of only qualified immunity to public officers does not affect the general grant of absolute immunity to district attorneys.

Boyer v. Petersen

221 F. Supp. 3d 943 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 27, 2016

Legal Framework: 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 … Chief Campbell is entitled to qualified immunity. Chief Campbell, on the other hand, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Sheets v. Butera

389 F.3d 772 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … As previously noted, before we determine whether the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, we first must determine whether the facts alleged show that the officers violated a constitutional right

Victor R. Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority

853 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

We address the qualified immunity question first. II. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … The defendants were thus entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s damages claims since the plaintiff held the type of upper-level management or administrative post that was not clearly protected against patronage

Malik Muntaqim, Adc 088633 v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

641 S.W.3d 35 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Feb 16, 2022

conduct violated that clearly established right. … Otherwise, a state official is immune from individual-capacity suits if his or her actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc.

542 F. Supp. 2d 683 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2008

’s constitutional rights were clearly established. … Hanas’s right under the Establishment Clause to be free from state coercion was clearly established since 2001. See Inouye v.

Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas

500 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 13, 2007

Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We do not require that an official demonstrate that he did not violate clearly established federal rights; our precedent places that burden upon plaintiffs.”). … To prevail, Zarnow must show that the search was unreasonable under clearly-established law at the time of the search. See Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1998).

Hal Stanley v. Asa Hutchinson

12 F.4th 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damages actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Finally, even if the Fourth Amendment applies in this situation, an issue we do not decide, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit when the Stanley children

Tennyson v. Children's Services Division

308 Or. 80 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1989

Under section 1983, there are two types of immunity: qualified and absolute. 3 Qualified immunity is the norm for executive officials. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800, 807 , 102 S Ct 2727 , 73 L Ed 2d 396 (1982). … It protects conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 US at 818 ; see also Anderson v.

Peter Antonellis v. Department of Elder Affairs and Ann Hartsein, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Elder Affairs

Massachusetts Superior Court · Jan 15, 2019

Even if Plaintiff establishes these three elements, a Defendant escapes liability if he or she shows an entitlement to qualified immunity, an affirmative defense. DiMarco C Zappa v. … clearly established rights."