Case law

Bowman v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

857 F. Supp. 1524 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 20, 1994

An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A plaintiff who seeks damages ... may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those [constitutional or statutory] rights were clearly established.” Elder v.

Thomas v. City of Troy

293 F. Supp. 3d 282 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 22, 2018

Qualified Immunity "Once qualified immunity is pleaded, plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed unless defendant's alleged conduct, when committed, violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Sikirica is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time. See Wise v.

Miesen v. State Department of Transportation

226 Wis. 2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Apr 6, 1999

Because the DOT is a State agency, see §§ 15.01(5) and 15.46, Stats., Miesen's complaint cannot stand unless the legislature has expressly and clearly consented for the DOT to be sued, thus waiving its sovereign immunity. … According to the DOT, the legislature must clearly and expressly waive the State's sovereign immunity with respect to each type of claim that might be brought under § 109.03(5). We disagree.

Crowley v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Southampton

872 F. Supp. 1171 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1995

The Complaint should be Dismissed Against the Individual Defendants on the Basis of Qualified Immunity. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his or her conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino

240 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

Kirby Ingram v. Louis Kubik

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2022

If a defend- ant advances the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the dis- trict court must dismiss any claims that fail to allege a violation of clearly established law. See id. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show either that there was some constitutional violation or that it was clearly established, and we may consider these two elements in either order

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.

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2009

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Mahoney v. Hankin

844 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue.” … In evaluating Hankin’s qualified immunity defense to these allegations, we must assess the “objective legal reasonableness” of his actions “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [those actions

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.

Aczel v. Labonia

92 F. App'x 17 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Feb 12, 2004

facts plaintiff invokes constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of the event. … established at the time.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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

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.

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

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.