Case law

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

Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace

678 F.3d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 8, 2012

Discussion The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which … We exercise our discretion to consider prong one of the qualified immunity analysis first.

Sythe v. City of Eureka

78 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 28, 2000

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND FALSE ARREST Government officials performing their discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … ANALYSIS For this Court to find qualified immunity for the individual officers in the case at bar, it must reach two conclusions: First, that the law governing the officers’ conduct was clearly established; and second, under

Richard Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State

737 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity "from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … DeKalb Cnty., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir. 1995) (reversing denial of qualified immunity on equal-protection retaliation claim because there is "no clearly established right . . . under the equal protection clause to be free

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

Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Tribal Council Members v. Harrington

13 Am. Tribal Law 287 · Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Tribal Appellate Court · Mar 5, 2015

The Appellate Court notes that the Tribal Council Members’ brief makes absolutely no reference to this Constitutional provision establishing qualified immunity for tribal officials and employees. … Tribal Immunity from Suit The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Oda-wa Indians, including all subordinate entities, shall be immune from suit except to the extent that the Tribal Council clearly and expressly waives its sovereign

Blanca Arizmendi v. Brownsville Indep Sch Dist

919 F.3d 891 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 26, 2019

probable cause for a different charge from that sought in the warrant, but Gabbert is entitled to qualified immunity because this was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. … But Arizmendi has not persuaded us that Gabbert’s actions were then illicit by clearly established law. Gabbert is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

970 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

The officers respond that probable cause is not the correct standard and that, even if it was, the standard was not clearly established, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Michael Alexander v. Mark McKinney

692 F.3d 553 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fleming v. … Claims of qualified immunity involve two questions: (1) whether the official’s con- duct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time. Surita v.

Fils v. City of Aventura

647 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2011

The court then revised its rulings on the Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. … But, where the officer’s conduct is so outrageous that it clearly goes “so far beyond” these borders, qualified immunity will not protect him *1292 even in the absence of case law. Reese v.

Click v. Copeland

970 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992

In the first part of Matherne, the court concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity because the law was not clearly established in July 1983 that a sheriff could not retaliate … The crucial difference was the analytical framework established by McBee. Id. at 759, 760. The law of McBee was clearly established in January 1988.

David Evans v. Patrick Baker

703 F.3d 636 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for damages when their conduct does not violate a “clearly established” constitutional right. See Harlow v. … To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) allege a violation of a right (2) that is clearly established at the time of the violation. See Pearson v.

Duran v. City of Douglas

904 F.2d 1372 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

However, the Supreme Court has established a limited exception to this rule: “[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ … The legal issues involved in that appeal — whether Aguilar violated clearly established constitutional protections — are identical to those governing the question of Aguilar’s qualified immunity.

Megatel Homes LLC v. City of Mansfield, Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2025

The City’s assertion that the Sherman Act claims should be dismissed because it is entitled to state-action immunity is more than an affirmative defense. Like qualified immunity, where it’s available, see Stramaski v. … And, like qualified immunity, Parker immunity is not jurisdictional. See, e.g., Teladoc v. Tex. Med. Bd., 1-15-CV-343 RP, 2015 WL 8773509, at *6 (W.D. Tex.

Britt v. Garcia

457 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 25, 2006

Qualified Immunity Doctrine “The doctrine of qualified immunity offers protection for ‘government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … subjected to such conduct was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, or that the appellants’ actions were objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time

Kulwicki v. Dawson

969 F.2d 1454 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 2, 1992

As to the issue of media communication, however, we find that Loutzenhiser is entitled to qualified immunity because Kulwicki fails to allege a violation of clearly established federal law. … issue as to defendant’s commission of acts in violation of plaintiffs clearly established rights.

Cullen v. Mattaliano

690 F. Supp. 93 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 2, 1988

Defendants Mattaliano and MacDonald’s Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity. … The Supreme Court devised an objective test for qualified immunity in Harlow v.

Carmack v. Trombley

363 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2005

Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions” are entitled to a qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … to qualified immunity.

Moon v. Rockdale County

188 F. Supp. 3d 1369 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · May 27, 2016

Next, a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity privilege must show that (1) the state actor violated plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at … Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Kollaritsch v. Mich. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

298 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 2, 2017

Defendant Maybank is not entitled to qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim brought by Gross. Plaintiffs have established that the relevant rights were clearly established by 2012. … Because the law was clearly established at the time, Defendant Maybank's request for qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim is denied.