Case law

Majdalani v. Auburn University (CONSENT)

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 26, 2024

prong of qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity” by establishing that the Defendant violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation).

Carswell v. Borough of Homestead

381 F.3d 235 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 20, 2004

Murphy, 274 F.3d ruling on qualified immunity. … facts material to the qualified immunity violation of excessive force.

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Robert N. Wallin v. Silas Norman

317 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 27, 2003

For the most part, government employees are protected from civil suits, except to the extent that their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The issue of whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings has clearly not been decided, because the district court did not address the merits of the motion.

Singleton v. Cannizzaro

372 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged *411 conduct." 71 " … immunity from such claims because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if it did, the Defendants did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Murphy v. Goss

103 F. Supp. 3d 1234 · District Court, D. Oregon · Apr 16, 2015

Standards for Qualified Immunity Under Section 1983 Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … “whether federal rights asserted by a plaintiff were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir.2003). George v.

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School District

247 F.3d 1123 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Fankell , 520 U.S. 911, 915 (1997) (“[A] Federal District Court order rejecting a qualified immunity defense on the ground that the defendant’s actions—if proved—would have violated clearly established law may be appealed … Defendant Shackett also claimed that even if such a right existed it was not clearly established at the time of the events underlying this suit, thus entitling him to qualified immunity.

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

Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace

678 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2012

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which … We exercise our discretion to consider prong one of the qualified immunity analysis first.

State v. Melms

101 N.E.3d 747 · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2018

Melms immunity from prosecution due to his confinement is contrary to the policy considerations underlying the immunity statute. {¶ 14} Melms asserts that he is a qualified individual as defined by R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii … The newly established immunity from prosecution set out in R.C. 2925.11(B) is not a fundamental right." {¶ 20} According to the State, "the class distinction drawn by this law is based solely on whether an individual has

Maewal v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.

868 S.W.2d 886 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 1994

Appellant contends appellees failed to provide written notice as required by the act and therefore fail to qualify for immunity. We reject this contention. … Second, appellant contends appellees failed to establish lack of malice, an affirmative defense, as a matter of law and do not qualify for immunity. Texas Medical Practice Act.

Linda DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 5, 2025

On appeal, Dwyer contends that he didn’t violate DeVooght’s clearly established First Amendment rights, so he should receive qualified immunity. … We have repeatedly held that a public employee’s right to engage in protected speech without retaliation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Buddenberg v.

Gaffey v. Illinois Dept of Juvenile Justice

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public officials from damages liability unless the evidence shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the … The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument against qualified immunity to be flawed, however, as it frames “clearly established” law at too high a level of generality.

Sharkany v. Bryce

District Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officer Bryce is also entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the Plaintiff’s claims. … did not violate a clearly established right.

Robert D. Mastroianni v. Michael J. Bowers, Patrick D. Deering, Joe B. Jackson, Jr., Weyland Yeomans

74 F.3d 236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 1996

immunity as a defense, and (2) the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of clearly established law. … to determining whether the law supposedly violated was clearly established.

James v. Price

602 F. Supp. 843 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1985

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), a government official performing a discretionary function is shielded by qualified immunity unless his actions violated “clearly established statutory or … Operating on the assumption that the right to be free from malicious prosecution was not a clearly established right, we found that the *846 state officers in this case were entitled to rely on the qualified immunity defense

Seals v. City of Lancaster

553 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2008

Officer Laser is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity Officer Laser also contends he is entitled to summary judgment on a theory of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Saucier v. … With respect to the second factor in a qualified immunity analysis under Saucier, the court must determine whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable

Williams v. Morgan

710 F. Supp. 1080 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jan 5, 1989

Under the objective standard, the immunity defense is unavailable to the defendant “if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] challenged conduct, if [he] knew or … The question becomes, therefore, whether he forfeited that immunity if he engaged in conduct which he knew or should have known would infringe a “clearly established” constitutional right enjoyed by the plaintiff.

Marcelino Alvarez-Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, C.J. Nichols, In His/Her Individual and Official Capacity, and Waterloo Police Department

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 6, 2023

First, Iowa Code section 670.4A(1)(a) (2022) provides qualified immunity to employees or officers subject to claims arising under the IMTCA: 1. … The right, privilege, or immunity secured by law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation, or at the time of the alleged deprivation the state of the law was not sufficiently clear

Knighton v. Benton County, MS

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity When considering a qualified immunity defense, we must determine whether the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether defendant violated clearly established law. … And it is clearly established. Good v.