Case law

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera Monroig

30 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established” in this Circuit. … In addition, the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as the right to be free from political discrimination and actual or constructive patronage dismissals was clearly established in the First Circuit

Brown v. Armenti

247 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 17, 2001

immunity, "the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of violation of clearly established law." … "clearly established." 31 Behrens v.

Hoyer v. DiCocco

457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

Lindsey v. Storey

936 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1991

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers performing discretionary functions from suit for all violations except those of clearly established law. Harlow v. … But, again, Storey is entitled to qualified immunity unless he clearly lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

Business Leaders In Christ v. The University of Iowa

991 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 22, 2021

The court also granted the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because it concluded that the law was not clearly established. … Instead, the focus of this appeal is limited to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that the individual defendants’ conduct violated those rights.

Vance v. Barrett

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

David W. Landrum v. Al Gomez

37 F.3d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 5, 1994

II 5 When qualified immunity applies, the shield from section 1983 liability for damages will be lifted only if the party's conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Landrum had a clearly established constitutional right to marry, see Turner v.

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.

Palisano v. City of Clearwater

219 F. Supp. 2d 1249 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials are shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … defeating qualified immunity).

HILL v. JACKSON Et Al.

336 Ga. App. 679 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Mar 24, 2016

When a party moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, that party bears the burden of establishing that he was entitled to the protection of said immunity. Jobling, supra at 488 (2) (a). … Moreover, the contract itself clearly establishes the duties of CMA and its employees.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have a clearly established right to be free from patronage dismissals.

Keller v. McElveen

744 So. 2d 643 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 1999

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), the United States Supreme Court discussed the concept of prosecutorial immunity in the context of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit and concluded that the well-established … Qualified immunity ‘“represents the norm’ ” for executive officers ... so when a prosecutor “functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court” he is entitled only to qualified immunity.

Robert Reeves v. Wayne County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025

and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity.” … Second, we hold that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts.

Anderson v. City of Bellevue

862 F. Supp. 2d 1095 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Watson v. City of Kansas City

185 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 21, 2001

. • Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state actors from liability when acting within the scope of their employment. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part approach to determine if qualified immunity applies.

Walker v. Tyler County Commission

886 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · May 22, 1995

An executive official is entitled to qualified immunity where an objective observer could find that the officer reasonably believed that his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See e.g. … any clearly established constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

Nichols v. City of Jackson

848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.

Lopez Lopez v. Aran

699 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 14, 1988

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the basis of qualified immunity. … For reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion and directs a verdict in favor of the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. *366 The doctrine of qualified immunity applies to government officials performing