Case law

Schreiner v. Hodge

504 P.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 18, 2022

But not every act involving an element of judgment will qualify for immunity. … In addition, the § 1983 plaintiff faces the towering barrier of qualified immunity.

Peete v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County

486 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2007

clearly established." … The Court held that Champion's arrest and restraint by police constituted a clearly established unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and denied the police officers' argument that they were entitled to qualified

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .

Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi

272 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 30, 2001

Virgili challenges the district court’s ruling that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because her Fourth Amendment right against a strip-search was not “clearly established” at the time of search. We AFFIRM. … The district court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because Virg-ili’s right against the search .was not “clearly established” at

Scarpa v. Ponte

638 F. Supp. 1019 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 2, 1986

Third, Scarpa claims that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were clearly established at the time he was wrongly punished. 2 A. … In King, the First Circuit Court of Appeals took into account the defendant’s violation of clearly established prison regulations in denying his qualified immunity defense.

O'Neil v. Texas Deparment of Criminal Justice

804 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 7, 2011

A defense of qualified immunity “alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof ... … Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates a clearly established right under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.

Myers v. City of Hermosa Beach

299 F. App'x 744 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 7, 2008

If we find a violation of a constitutional right, we must then ask whether that right is clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … to qualified immunity as to Silva’s false arrest claim. 2 (3) Lewitt next argues that the district court erred when it denied qualified immunity on Silva’s excessive force claim against him.

Eagon v. City Of Elk City

72 F.3d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 3, 1996

relevant law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred." … established public forum doctrine and affirm the district judge's grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants.

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.

Witchard v. Surampudi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

As a government official, Surampudi is, at minimum, entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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."

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.

Evans v. City of San Diego

913 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 19, 2012

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For example, “qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his ... conduct was lawful, in light of the clearly established law- and the information” possessed by the officer at the

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

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 .

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.’