Case law

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

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.

Osipova v. Dinkins

864 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 6, 1994

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity has long shielded government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, Martinez is only entitled to qualified immunity if, assuming the facts as set forth by the plaintiff, it was objectively reasonable for Martinez to believe, in light of clearly established law and the information he

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.

Darryl Leon Rouse v. William Plantier, Acting Superintendent of A.D.T.C. Sally S. Scheidemantel, Resigning Superintendent of A.D.T.C. William H. Fauver, Commissioner of N.J. Department of Corrections Governor Jim Florio, State of New Jersey Dr. Robert Cardinale, Medical Director of A.D.T.C. Dr. Narshima Reddy, Attending Physician of A.D.T.C. Ms. Elaine Martin, Chief Nurse of A.D.T.C. Captain Helmkin, Housing Mike Zell, Director of Social Services Dr. Sandoval, Attending Psychologist of A.D.T.C. Dr. Cattone, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Scott Faunce Dr. Tarlian, M.D. Dr. O'bryne, M.D. Dr. Todd, M.D., St. Francis Hospital Charles Brooks, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Stephen Jankowski, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Julio Baez, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Robert Kammerer, on Behalf of a Class of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Elaine Allen John Doe Jane Roe William Plantier Robert Cardinale Narshima Reddy Elaine Allen

182 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 29, 1999

Turning to defendants' qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that the right at issue was clearly established and that the defendants had failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of their actions. … immunity, it is necessary to determine whether a reasonable official in the position of that defendant would have known that his or her actions were unconstitutional in light of the clearly established law and the information

Trugreen Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott

512 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 16, 2007

Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 588 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit alleging RICO claim because rights that served as basis of claim were not clearly established … Although it is well settled that qualified immunity is not analyzed in identical terms as are the merits of Scott’s RICO claim, in these circumstances' — where Duebner is clearly entitled to summary judgment and has already

Dominguez v. Figueroa Sancha

373 F. Supp. 3d 333 · United States District Court · Feb 7, 2019

Qualified Immunity [A] public actor's liability under [ § ] 1983 is not absolute: the doctrine of qualified immunity provides a safe harbor for a wide range of mistaken judgments. *348 Cox v. … Predictably, they now move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, so the court will give it a second go. The qualified immunity inquiry "entails a two-step pavane." Alfano v.

McCall Ex Rel. Odom v. Department of Human Resources

176 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Nov 29, 2001

their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Lassiter v. … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

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

Olson v. Johnson

961 So. 2d 356 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 29, 2007

Alternatively, Johnson asserts that a qualified privilege is applicable and is sufficient to defeat Olson's claim. We conclude that neither an absolute nor a qualified privilege applies here. … Sovereign Immunity Does Not Apply Finally, Johnson has failed to explain how her actions in filing the police affidavit could possibly be protected by sovereign immunity.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2021

Even if the Court concluded that Officer Gaton’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity so long as the use force did not violate “clearly established” law. … a “clearly established” right.

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

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. .

Ricardo Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston

826 F.3d 272 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 16, 2016

“In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional right, and then must show that ‘the right was clearly established . . . in light of the specific context of the case … of which was clearly unreasonable.”

Mason v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

774 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 29, 2011

entitled to qualified immunity because their liability had not been “clearly established.” 160 The Individual Defendants provide no First Circuit case law to support the application of qualified immunity here. 161 The Individual … See, e.g., Darby, 287 F.3d at 681 (explaining that the qualified immunity defense does not apply because the FMLA creates "clearly established statutory rights”).

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.

Fuller v. Truncale

50 So. 3d 25 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 2, 2010

In the motion to dismiss, Fuller claimed judicial immunity against the class action, arguing he was simply following protocol established in several administrative orders. … Exposito, 824 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating ”[b]ecause qualified immunity protects an individual from having to defend a suit, O'Brien will effectively lose his entitlement to qualified immunity if the case proceeds

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.

Brown v. ONTARIO COUNTY

787 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Nevertheless, I find that even if probable cause was lacking or questionable, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would