Case law

Fidler v. City of Indianapolis

428 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 20, 2006

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity where the facts plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time, meaning that a reasonable officer … Accordingly, qualified immunity is not available at this stage in the case. Morfin v.

Hernandez v. Conde

442 F. Supp. 2d 1131 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 24, 2006

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of … On the other hand, if a violation has been shown, the next step in the qualified immunity sequence is to ask whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Id.

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1854, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 989 Debra A. Braddy v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Douglas Jamerson, Secretary of Labor, Robert Lynch, in His Individual Capacity, E. Kathryn Davis, in Her Individual Capacity

133 F.3d 797 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1998

In finding Lynch ineligible for qualified immunity and Davis deserving of qualified immunity, we affirm in part and reverse in part. I. … authority, violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Eastwood v. Department Of Corrections Of The State Of Oklahoma

846 F.2d 627 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 12, 1988

Lovelace in his individual capacity survives the qualified immunity defense because plaintiff has established that Mr. Lovelace knew or should have known about plaintiff's clearly established right of privacy. … To determine the applicability of a qualified immunity defense, an appellate court must examine if the official conduct at issue "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

DeBellis v. Kulp

166 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 10, 2001

Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The next inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis is whether the right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of the encounter.

Drake v. City of Rochester

96 Misc. 2d 86 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1978

As the United States Supreme Court noted in Imbler ( 424 US 409 ), the procedural difference between absolute and qualified immunity is an important one. … On the other hand, "The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trials.”

Barnes v. Dale

530 So. 2d 770 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 24, 1988

Paul answered the complaint on January 3, 1986, and raised "qualified immunity" as an affirmative defense. Harpole, Dr. Barnes, and Dr. … This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v.

Beverly Getz v. J. Swoap

833 F.3d 646 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 16, 2016

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order.

Mollan v. Lindner

544 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1996

This Court made clear in Montgomery that, absent statutory classification, the parameters establishing “high public official” status would be delineated by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a … Exercising significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of Yeadon, Appellee clearly qualifies as a “high public official” under the criteria established in Montgomery .

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Vega-Santiago v. Ortiz-Velez

405 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 2005

Saucier outlines the two steps of the qualified immunity analysis: (1) if a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether the right was clearly established. … In short, to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity ‘the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.’

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

81 Conn. App. 382 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity typically “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken . . . .”

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

Hufford v. McEnaney

249 F.3d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 2001

On interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on a claim of qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction over the purely legal question of whether Hufford has established a claim supported by clearly established law … Hufford, as the party seeking to deprive the defendants of qualified immunity, bears the burden of proving that the rights he claims were “clearly established” at the time they were allegedly violated.

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Burgos-Yantin v. Municipality of Juana Díaz

669 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 6, 2009

The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing “discretionary functions from ... civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “[A] defendant who claims qualified immunity must do so either [1] on the theory that the asserted right is not clearly established or [2] on the theory that the conduct attributed to him satisfies the test of objective legal

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks v.

Keith K. Stevens v. Scott Rose, Esq. Kenny Moore County of Lander, and Troy Hanson

298 F.3d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

Establishing qualified immunity requires that the official’s conduct be objectively reasonable “as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Hanson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. AFFIRMED. 1 .

Baar v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.

666 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 27, 2009

In an extraordinary case, it may be possible for the decisions of other courts to clearly establish a principle of law. … Because Plaintiff's right to attend the LACA meetings was not clearly established at the time of Jury's reprimand, all of the individual defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim. V.

Jon Holland v. Martin Simmerman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 25, 2026

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To overcome dismissal based on qualified immunity, “the plaintiff must plead facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of