Case law

Church of Universal Love & Music v. Fayette County

892 F. Supp. 2d 736 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2012

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity involves a two-prong inquiry. … I find, therefore, that the pertinent law was not “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow

49 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

If the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the public official is entitled to summary judgment. … This means, in the context of a motion based on qualified immunity, that the plaintiff must show “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant’s conduct as being violative of the clearly established law

Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Department

227 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 6, 2000

Qualified immunity “ ‘shield[s] [government agents] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which 'a reasonable person would have … To evaluate a qualified immunity claim, we first ask whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; if so, we ask whether under that law, and under the circumstances at issue, a reasonable officer

Dunklin v. Lowndes County

894 F. Supp. 1527 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 30, 1995

“clearly established”). … In plain terms, Hulett is entitled to qualified immunity if the Plaintiffs fail to produce sufficient evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to them, Hulett violated their clearly established Fourteenth Amendment

Malsh v. Austin

901 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1995

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right.

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

George v. McIntosh-Wilson

582 So. 2d 1058 · Supreme Court of Alabama · May 24, 1991

In order to defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff "bears the burden of showing that 'the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions.' " Barts … The defendants cannot claim qualified immunity solely on the argument that George's constitutional rights to be reasonably safe from potentially deadly objects were not clearly established at the time of the accident.

Key v. Grayson

998 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 19, 1998

A claim of qualified immunity depends on whether the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … not clearly established, and thus recommended that this court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims for money damages on the basis of qualified immunity.

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

Collins v. Jordan

110 F.3d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 4, 1996

Thus, we have jurisdiction to consider Hongisto’s legal contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that, given the events of the previous day, an order to ban all demonstrations … Such conduct would violate clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Mearday v. City of Chicago

196 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields those government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … At the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the burden of demonstrating a clearly established constitutional right lies with the plaintiff.

Hill v. Florio

District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Thus, if a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court should grant qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established

Flowers v. Bennett

123 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 2000

Qualified Immunity The defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established law. … Public officials, including correctional officers, are protected from actions brought against them in their individual capacities by qualified immunity if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional

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

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.”

Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines

326 Ark. 217 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Oct 7, 1996

The qualified immunity claim is a claim of right which is separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the complaint. . . . … Beaumont, supra, and stated: “The appealability of a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity from suit is clearly established.” Virden v. Roper, 302 Ark. at 128 , 788 S.W.2d at 472 .

Dempsey v. Denver Police Department

353 P.3d 928 · Colorado Court of Appeals · May 21, 2015

hazards" as "rain, fog, smoke, crowded traffic conditions, or many pedestrians crossing and re-crossing the roadway, perhaps unlawfully, after a parade, or the like," and noting that those kinds of conditions had not been established … zone from so qualifying.

Morgan v. Swanson

627 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 29, 2010

Qualified immunity thus shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability for civil damages but only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a … Appellees’ have alleged a violation of clearly established law; therefore, Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Hunt v. Green

376 F. Supp. 2d 1043 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 30, 2005

“When the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established law,”, the order denying summary … Even assuming a constitutional violation occurred, however, the Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established in this area.

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,