Case law

Doe v. Aguilar

400 F. Supp. 2d 922 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2005

As noted above, plaintiffs have the burden to show that qualified immunity is unavailable here and to do so plaintiffs must show that the right which they allege defendant violated was clearly established in December 2001 … City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320 , 325 (5th Cir.1998): In reviewing a claim of qualified immunity, this Court must determine: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right;

Patricia McCardle Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Jonathan Haddad, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

131 F.3d 43 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 21, 1997

Qualified Immunity Haddad’s “alternative! … Qualified immunity, which shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Ziccardi v. Commonwealth

109 Pa. Commw. 628 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 8, 1987

Federal courts have applied only a qualified immunity on behalf of Commonwealth officials in section 1983 claims. … Specifically, under the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Wood, the immunity defense would be unavailable to the secretary if the constitutional rights which he allegedly infringed were clearly established at

Patrizi v. Huff

821 F. Supp. 2d 926 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2011

The Right is Clearly Established The Court must next consider whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity — whether the constitutional right at issue is clearly established. Saucier v. … In other words, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be protected by qualified immunity.

Garcia v. Webb County District Attorney

764 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 12, 1991

Thus absolute immunity is not a protection to Defendant Garcia in his role as an employer; at best, Defendant Garcia has only qualified immunity for his alleged misbehavior in the instant case. Qualified Immunity. … Defendant Garcia has not established entitlement to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and he does not have absolute immunity.

State v. Jones

213 Neb. 1 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1982

The court specifically found that the defendant’s immunized testimony established that, although the defendant in this case was not the actual killer in the Iowa case, “he was clearly liable, but for the State of Iowa’s grant … The court then held that the second clause of aggravating circumstance (l)(a) was clearly applicable beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the defendant’s previous involvement in the Iowa murder reflected by the immunized

Provencio v. Vazquez

258 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2009

immunity because the violation was not “clearly established.” cf. … Turning to the two factors for qualified immunity identified in Saucier the court on this issue will first inquire into whether the right was “clearly established.”

Brown v. City of Milwaukee

288 F. Supp. 2d 962 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Garcia violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 statutory

Parker v. Gerrish

547 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 5, 2008

Though the motion did not refer to "qualified immunity" or to "clearly established law," Gerrish contends he adequately raised that issue. … Gerrish did not refer to "clearly established law" and made no effort to address his argument to qualified immunity.

Cofield v. Randolph County Commission

844 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1994

A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages as long as the official could reasonably believe that his or her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v. … Because qualified immunity is rarely established upon a motion to dismiss and because insufficient information is contained in the complaint to establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the court finds that

McCormack v. Livergood

353 F. Supp. 3d 357 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing "discretionary functions," are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ … were "clearly established" at the time of the incident.

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Creech v. Eckerd Corp.

56 Va. Cir. 407 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Sep 18, 2001

Qualified Immunity Recently in Saucier v. Katz, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of qualified immunity. No. 991977 (June 18,2001). … If the right was not clearly established or it would not be clear to a reasonable officer, in the same situation, that his conduct was unlawful, a court is entitled to grant summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

Donald Xiques v. Charme Knight

Court of Appeals of Tennessee · Aug 21, 2003

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering … Plaintiff argues that the issues in these two cases are not identical, because the Sixth Circuit opinion merely dealt with the issue of qualified immunity, and whether or not defendant had violated “clearly established law

Hiller v. Ramsey

District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 3, 2020

The court further concluded that the officer’s use of excessive force violated clearly established law, so the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Hiller met his burden to show that Ramsey’s conduct violated clearly established law, Ramsey is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Hiller’s claim.

Johnnie Savory v. Allen Andrews

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

The officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity only if their interrogation techniques did not violate Savory’s clearly established right to due process. Rivas-Villegas v. … Regardless, focusing on this difference is too myopic an approach given that Savory need only present similar—not identical—cases to satisfy qualified immunity’s “clearly established” requirement.

White v. Martin

26 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 19, 1998

In a section 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an official sued in his individual capacity “from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11

678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004

Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.