Case law

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.

Emily Evans v. Phil Plummer

687 F. App'x 434 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2017

Since we found no Fourth Amendment violation in Stricker, that case cannot constitute clearly established law sufficient to deny Feehan qualified immunity. White, 137 S. Ct. at 551. … But McDaniel actually expressed doubt about the holding in Parker and granted qualified immunity on the grounds that the law with respect to tasers was not clearly established. Id. at *27.

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.

Doe v. Groody

361 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 19, 2004

The four Task Force officers appeal the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. II. … But the immunity is forfeited if an officer’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson v.

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.

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.

Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Department of Children & Family Services

809 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability government officials performing discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “The third inquiry impacts the analysis when despite the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, and so should still enjoy qualified immunity.” Id.

Dontray Chaney v. City of Orlando, FL

291 F. App'x 238 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2008

Qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability if, considering the facts in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the officers’ conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … to establish that qualified immunity does not apply.”

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.

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

Montel v. City of Springfield

386 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2019

As this Court has but recently explained: *75 "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Mills v. Denny

245 Iowa 584 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 9, 1954

Of .this nature are proceedings in legislative assemblies, and generally in judicial tribunals.” *592 The court here clearly had reference to the state legislative assembly. Also see Mayo v. … However, most of the courts have rejected such extension of absolute immunity and permitted such bodies only a conditional or qualified privilege. Bradley v. Heath, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 163, 22 Am. Dec. 418 ; Smith v.

Schroeder v. County of Nassau

158 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 28, 2016

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendants have the burden of raising in their answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.”

Morales v. Chadbourne

996 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 12, 2014

established right in this regard, qualified immunity attaches to these defendants on the procedural due process claim. … These constitutional principles are axioms that are not questionable or in doubt; they are and have been “clearly established,” and thus the Federal Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

Doug Morgan v. Plano Independent School District

610 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 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.

Peach County School District v. Austin

322 Ga. App. 368 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 20, 2013

Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection. … Moreover, qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial, rather than a mere defense to liability, and “courts must consider the issue of a government employee’s qualified immunity from liability as the threshold

Schrob v. Catterson

948 F.2d 1402 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 15, 1991

any clearly established constitutional rights. … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish that "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person