Case law

Savage v. Westcott

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” 8 “We may address … To survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, Savage must show both that the Defendants’ actions violated his right to due process and that this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)

227 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2017

Defendant also stresses that sovereign immunity is a well-established defense to ADA claims in federal courts, and that plaintiff could have pursued both the LAD and ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations … Burdette Tomlin Mem’l Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006)). 5 *500 To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability

Rivera-Ramos v. Roman

156 F.3d 276 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 29, 1998

Qualified immunity shields state officials from civil damage liability under section 1983, insofar as their conduct does not idolate “clearly established” rights of which “a reasonable person would have known” at the time … In sum, we conclude that the district court’s denial of qualified immunity rested upon a mistakenly abstract view of what is clearly established law and that the case must be remanded for further consideration of the qualified

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Estate of Davis Ex Rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills

406 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 11, 2005

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 known.”17 Qualified immunity is … violated clearly established law.

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].

Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory, Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court 2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers violated clearly established federal law. … official's conduct did not violate clearly established law."

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

Robert W. Fowler v. Armond Cross, Commissioner of Florida Parole Board

635 F.2d 476 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 27, 1981

Navarette, 434 U.S. at 562 , 98 S.Ct. at 859 , the Supreme Court said: 9 [T]he [qualified] immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established … The district court’s finding of qualified immunity is clearly erroneous and is reversed. III.

Zapach v. Dismuke

134 F. Supp. 2d 682 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2001

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

Richard E. Finlan (And Don Venable - Dismissed) v. Dallas Independent School District

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 24, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields governmental officials from liability under Section 1983 for civil damages if A their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It did not address the first inquiry in the qualified immunity analysis; that is, it did not address the question of law whether the law was clearly established in 1992 that the filing of a civil suit, alleged to be malicious

Braham v. Newbould

Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 6, 2015

‘‘Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … ‘‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’’ Brooks v. Sweeney, supra, 299 Conn. 217.

Brown v. Lyford

243 F.3d 185 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 2001

II To overcome the qualified immunity of government officials, Brown must show 1) a constitutional violation; 2) of a right clearly established at the time the violation occurred; and 3) that the defendant actually … So much is established for res judicata and the statute of limitations, two other affirmative defenses. . . . Defendants inform us that they want the benefit of qualified immunity.

Jerald Davis v. William Owens

973 F.2d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1992

The parties, however, assert that this court reviews a district court’s denial of qualified immunity under the clearly erroneous standard enunciated in Hughes v. … Qualified Immunity Public officials “generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Estate of Massey ex rel. Co-Administrators of her Estate Hodges v. City of Philadelphia

118 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2015

Because the Third Circuit has clearly held that the burden of pleading the defense of qualified immunity falls on the defendant, Defendants have not yet met their burden to sufficiently plead qualified immunity, and Plaintiff … ’s conduct allegedly violated were clearly established.”).

Linbrugger v. Abercia

363 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 22, 2004

Qualified immunity protects public officers from suit if them conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … First, we must determine whether the facts, either as the plaintiff alleges or as proved without dispute, establish that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right. Price v.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).