Case law

Lattany v. Four Unknown U.S. Marshals

845 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1994

I must next decide whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional rights violated by the defendants were not “clearly established” at the time of the incidents. … There is no meaningful dispute regarding qualified immunity. The right of both convicted prisoners and pre-trial detainees not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is clearly established.

Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes

170 F. Supp. 3d 276 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 21, 2016

Absolute and Qualified Immunity 1. … For these, only qualified immunity would be available.

Mayronne v. Vaught

843 F. Supp. 1096 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 23, 1994

Because it is not a clearly established constitutional right, Mr. Mayronne’s claims for malicious prosecution are barred by the theory of qualified immunity. 3. … Mayronne was not clearly established, thus barring his claim on the theory of qualified immunity. 4.

Firth v. State

12 A.D.3d 907 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 2004

The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion premised on OSIG’s absolute privilege rendering it immune from liability, or alternatively, that OSIG was entitled to a qualified immunity … As the governor would clearly be entitled to absolute immunity, so are employees or agents specifically delegated the authority to carry out his duties (see Ward Telecom. & Computer Servs. v State of New York, supra at 291

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.

Demetrius Rashard Luke v. Jameel H. Gulley

50 F.4th 90 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2022

DISCUSSION Law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages for their discretionary acts when their conduct does not violate a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … Our precedents agree—an officer who seeks an arrest warrant based on a ‘conclusory affidavit’ that ‘clearly is insufficient to establish prob- able cause’ is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

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.

Wesley Brayman v. Mark Shepherd

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 4, 1996

of clearly established law.'" … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 (1991) (holding that the first inquiry in a proper qualified immunity analysis is whether the plaintiff alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right).

Brown v. Ridgway

845 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 29, 2012

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Id. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 (“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability under federal law unless their conduct violates a clearly established

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.

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

Cunningham v. Snyder

472 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law … See Greenberg, 840 F.2d at 472 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ) (observing that the principle underlying the doctrine of qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at the time was not clearly established,

Bazan Ex Rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo County

246 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 27, 2001

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability if their actions were objectively reasonable in the light of then clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Violano v. Fernandez

280 Conn. 310 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 17, 2006

Specifically, the majority concluded that qualified governmental immunity applied to Fernandez’ alleged actions because they were discretionary in nature. Id., 12. … Further, the majority determined that none of the exceptions to Fernandez’ qualified governmental immunity applied. Id.

Ada Anglemeyer v. Craig Ammons

92 F.4th 184 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 7, 2024

both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. … Our sister circuits have denied qualified immunity in cases factually similar to Couden. See, e.g., Shannon v.

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

Ronald Dean Brown v. Crispus C. Nix John Henry John Emmet Paul Hedgepath Charles Harper Paul Grossheim Hal Farrier

33 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 18, 1994

They asserted, among other things, that they are immune from suit by reason of qualified immunity. … In order to lose their qualified immunity, officials must violate an inmate’s clearly established constitutional rights. Id.

Mohamed Emad v. Dodge County

71 F.4th 649 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 26, 2023

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (establishing a two-pronged inquiry for an award of qualified immunity); Johnson v. … And doubtless, too, the district court was right to un- derscore the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that prong two of a proper qualified immunity inquiry requires identifying the pertinent body of clearly established

Dennis Wolfel v. Nick Sanborn

666 F.2d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 14, 1982

As our decisions make clear, whether such immunity has been established depends on facts peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the defendant. . .. … The burden would then be upon the plaintiff to show either that a subjective, bad faith intent to harm him motivated the official or that the official knew or should have known that his action infringed a clearly established

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