Case law

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.

Saldana v. DiMedio

275 N.J. Super. 488 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 1994

Id. at 414, 608 A. 2d 263 ; see also N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(d) (providing qualified immunity for discretionary decision-making). … If, however, the qualified immunity for discretionary decision making does not apply, plaintiffs only need satisfy the standards of ordinary negligence.

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt

178 F. Supp. 3d 819 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Apr 12, 2016

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right and (2) whether that right *833 was clearly established

Bell v. City of Los Angeles

835 F. Supp. 2d 836 · District Court, C.D. California · Dec 20, 2011

establish constitutional precedent on questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable; and when few judicial resources would be conserved by considering only the “clearly … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v.

Shafran v. Parrish

787 So. 2d 177 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 11, 2001

Clearly, your actions are criminal regardless of whether or not your accusations are untrue.... . . . . … Therefore, the appellees did not establish that they were entitled to a summary judgment based on an undisputed fact of nonpublication.

Fisher v. City of Las Cruces

584 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 19, 2009

entitled to qualified immunity.” … Clearly Established Law The next question is whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful incident.

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes

628 F. App'x 353 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

We have “jurisdiction over the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 364 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Kirby v. … The qualified immunity inquiry for the denial of medical care similarly looks to see whether there was a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Perez v. ZAYAZ

396 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 3, 2005

Qualified Immunity. In the alternative, defendants have raised qualified immunity defense. … A qualified immunity defense requires a two-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Larry D. Jr. and Pamela Pyles v. Mason Co. Fair, Inc.

239 W. Va. 882 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2017

under the Act are legal determinations capable of and demanding resolution at this juncture of the litigation rather than at the appellate stage.15 Because the principles of governmental immunity clearly apply to the facts … Pack, 223 W.Va. 828, 831, 679 S.E.2d 660, 663 (2009) (affirming “need for early resolution of immunity rulings” and holding that summary judgment ruling predicated on qualified immunity is subject to immediate appeal under

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.”

Guirlaine O'Rourke v. Martin Trujillo

378 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2004

To be even potentially eligible for qualified immunity, the official has the burden of establishing that he was acting “within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Hartsfield v. … When qualified immunity is asserted in the context of a motion to dismiss, we look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.

McMorrow v. Little

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that MeMorrow’s claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

John K. Maciver Institute for Public Policy, Inc. v. Schmitz

243 F. Supp. 3d 1028 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 2017

Immunity Assuming plaintiffs could prove that defendants violated the SCA and lacked good faith in doing so, there is still the question of their right to absolute or qualified immunity. … Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 1998) (framing qualified immunity issue regarding a claim for a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as “whether [defendant’s] actions violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional

Toni Duncan v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Because Herron did not violate Duncan’s right to equal protection, this court needs not address the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established that Herron’s conduct violated Duncan

Foley v. Town of Lee

871 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · May 9, 2012

“The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) such right was clearly established at the time of the defendants … “A right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

Caffey v. Johnson

883 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … When considering a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a bifurcated analysis. First, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros, Nelson O. Robles v. Prince George's County, Maryland James Rozar Antonio Debarros

308 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 29, 2002

("Even though the officers' actions deprived Robles of an actual constitutional right, Rozar and DeBarros may still be entitled to qualified immunity if that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident." … Rather, it appears that the panel actually granted qualified immunity either on the wholly illegitimate ground that the officers did not subjectively understand that their conduct violated clearly established law, or on the

McKeon v. Daley

101 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 2000

Qualified immunity is available to protect conduct violating a clearly established constitutional right where the governmental official had an objectively reasonable and good faith belief that the action taken was lawful. … of qualified immunity.

Glover v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211353 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Feb 10, 2023

In such situations, the only relevant immunity provision is section 2-202 of the Act, which provides qualified immunity to public employees for acts or omissions “in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such … Additionally, unlike section 4-102, the immunity afforded under section 2-202 is qualified rather than absolute; a police officer is entitled to immunity under the provision unless the officer’s conduct was “willful and

Masters v. San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Ass'n

32 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1995

That is, while a public employee’s immunity is qualified, the immunity of a public entity for misrepresentation by its employee, whether intentional or negligent, is absolute. (Gov. Code, § 818.8; see Harshbarger v. … case to case, of the requisite qualifying facts.