Case law

Parks v. Warren Correctional Institution

51 F. App'x 137 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 13, 2002

allegedly infringed was “clearly established[.]” … cannot review the issue of qualified immunity.

Wood v. MCC Superintendant

89 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 22, 1996

B Plaintiffs can overcome the defendant's assertion of the qualified immunity defense only by showing that Clemons' conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ankele v. Hambrick

286 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Thus, qualified immunity is not available where a plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and the right was clearly established when violated.

Mobley v. City of Detroit

938 F. Supp. 2d 669 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 4, 2012

Finally, they argue that the officers had probable cause to arrest, prosecute and seize vehicles, and that qualified immunity shields them because their conduct did not violate clearly established law. … entitled to qualified immunity.

Henderson v. City of Philadelphia

853 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity Defense counsel argues that Gress is entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly, his actions were not objectively reasonable and were not done in good faith. Counsel has not provided any other reason why Gress would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Knight Ex Rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade County

856 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2017

As this Court has often observed, “qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … “[T]o receive qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.”

Arce v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

211 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2012

Thus, Congress clearly intended to authorize immunity for reporters in order to encourage more extensive reporting. … Under section 1983, government officials are generally entitled to “qualified immunity,” which “shields [them] from liability for civil damages if (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and

Reed v. Garden City Union Free School District

987 F. Supp. 2d 260 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 16, 2013

Qualified immunity protects an official from civil liability if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Taravella v. … When evaluating whether qualified immunity applies, the court must engage in a two-part inquiry: 1) whether the constitutional right has been violated; and 2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

Wendell Domina v. George VanPelt

235 F.3d 1091 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2000

show a violation of clearly established law. … The commissioners would nonetheless be protected by qualified immunity if in early 1998 (the time of their alleged misconduct) it was not clearly established that the speech in which Mr.

McGovern v. City of Minneapolis

480 N.W.2d 121 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jan 21, 1992

Qualified immunity The individual officers argue they are entitled to qualified immunity against respondents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We agree. … Whether qualified immunity exists turns on whether the officials violated clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known.

Durruthy v. City of Miami

235 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 13, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields a government official from § 1983 liability for harms arising from the offi- *1296 dal’s discretionary acts, so long as the discretionary acts do not violate clearly established federal … Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretion, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show, that qualified immunity should not be applied. Id.

Lewis v. Washington

265 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2003

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when performing discretionary functions so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … I find that the constitutional rights asserted by plaintiffs here are not “clearly established” for purposes of denying defendants qualified immunity.

Jerry Farrish v. Mississippi State Parole Board

836 F.2d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 5, 1988

Qualified Immunity B. Qualified Immunity Thigpen advances the alternate proposition that even under a qualified immunity theory, he cannot be liable for damages in this case. … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Courtney Richmond v. City of Brooklyn

490 F.3d 1002 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 2007

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Therefore, we proceed directly to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which asks whether the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Brandt v. Monte

626 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2009

Clearly Established Violation Having found that Plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation, the Court now turns to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, namely, whether the right violated was clearly established … whether the rights violated were clearly established.

Toni Duncan v. Rodney Herron

687 F.3d 955 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 3, 2012

Qualified immunity “protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Because Herron did not violate Duncan’s right to equal protection, this court needs not address the other prong of the qualified-immunity analysis: whether the law was clearly established that Herron’s conduct violated Duncan

Velharticky v. Independent School District No. 3 of Roger Mills County

846 F. Supp. 941 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 17, 1993

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff. 2 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity is available to government officials unless they violate clearly established statutory … Clearly, the board members receipt of complaints and other investigative activities does not violate a clearly established law.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Winig, J., Aplt. v. Office of DA of Phila.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2025

under the common law” and “held that immunity was not absolute but qualified and its availability depended on the circumstances of each case.” … To 5 No one disputes that Section 5725(b) clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity.