Case law

Warren v. Coffee County Commission

942 F. Supp. 1412 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 9, 1995

Clearly Established Law The court now turns to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity test. … Qualified immunity is appropriate on the excessive force claim. B.

Moss v. Kopp

505 F. Supp. 2d 1120 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 16, 2007

; and accordingly, (3) the court need not address qualified immunity. … Because both orders clearly fall under his statutory authority, he would qualify for judicial immunity. Consequently, Defendants satisfy the first step of the quasi-judicial immunity analysis. 2.

Williams v. City of Albany

936 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1991

Lack of good faith may be proved by showing that the public official’s actions violated clearly established constitutional law. Hudgins v. … Plaintiff has failed to make a showing, sufficient to overcome the claim of qualified immunity, that defendants’ actions were of the type that a reasonable police investigator would know violated the suspect’s clearly established

Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe

194 F. Supp. 3d 534 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 13, 2016

On the other hand, the clearly established prong does not necessarily require a case- “directly on point.” See Morgan v. … Jackson is entitled to qualified immunity. 2.Dr. El Sayed Dr. El Sayed is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Gubitosi v. Kapica

154 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 19, 1998

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 309 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996)), and proceed to consider whether the qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 4 Here the gravamen of Kapica's qualified immunity … As a result, his qualified immunity defense is established as a matter of law. 13 (2) Accordingly, we vacate so much of the district court's order of May 9, 1997 as denied Kapica's motion for summary judgment based on qualified

Charles E. Johnson v. Dan Schneiderheinz, Individually and as Sheriff of Merrick County, Nebraska, County of Merrick, Nebraska

102 F.3d 340 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 7, 1997

The sheriff moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Government officials are qualifiedly immune from liability in civil actions to the extent their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

Jaglowicz v. Bethel Township

178 F. Supp. 3d 262 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity Chief Worrilow and the five township supervisors invoke qualified immunity. Ja-glowicz having conceded that Worrilow has no liability, we consider qualified immunity for the five township supervisors. … In other words, if we find that the alleged right was not clearly established, the inquiry ends and the official is entitled to qualified immunity.

Mattos v. Agarano

590 F.3d 1082 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 12, 2010

clearly established right. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields the officers “from liability for civil damages [unless their conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

McDermott v. Town of Windham

204 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, D. Maine · May 31, 2002

Defendant Cox: Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has held that government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … Under qualified immunity, “Public officials who stand accused of civil rights violations under section 1983 nonetheless can-avoid liability... by showing either that they did not violate a right clearly established under

Ospina v. Department of Corrections, State of Del.

749 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 1990

In reviewing a qualified immunity claim, the District Court must determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed the defendant’s actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and of the information the … The constitutional infirmity of such police conduct thus was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest in this case.

Skehan v. Village Of Mamaroneck

465 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2006

If those facts would constitute a deprivation, the court should grant qualified immunity if (1) the legal right said to be violated was not clearly established at the time of the defendant's conduct; or (2) the defendant's … The individual defendants' qualified immunity turns on whether they violated clearly established federal law; the county commission's liability turns on the allocation of law enforcement power in Alabama. 38 Id. at 51 , 115

Maresca v. County of Bernalillo

804 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 22, 2015

On cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated clearly established Fourth Amendment standards. … Because the reasonableness inquiry overlaps with the qualified immunity 21  analysis, a qualified immunity defense is of less value when raised in defense of

Clerkley v. Holcomb

121 F.4th 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2024

Our review is thus confined to qualified immunity’s two prongs: whether the facts “suffice to show a legal violation” and “whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … The district court correctly denied him qualified immunity, so we affirm. 8 Holcomb finally argues that the district court erred by implying that a jury could decide the issue of clearly established law

Bender v. General Services Administration

539 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2008

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for constitutional torts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *713 a reasonable person … Qualified immunity protects a defendant from suits for violations only of constitutional rights that are not "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Saucier v.

Swear v. Lawson

288 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jan 16, 2018

in light of clearly established *679 law. 61 Plaintiff argues, however, that Lawson and Vinson are not entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to free speech is a clearly established right and their … Legal Standard on 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

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Childress v. Walker

943 F. Supp. 2d 1332 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Apr 30, 2013

Overview of Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the plaintiff cannot prove that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, then qualified immunity applies.

Adeyemi v. Office of General Counsel for Booth Police Officers, National Security Agency

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 20, 2021

Adeyemi has not alleged facts amounting to a violation of the Fourth Amendment or any other “clearly established” constitutional right, the booth police officers would be entitled to qualified immunity as to his claims … Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892, 907 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Lamb v. City of Decatur

947 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Nov 19, 1996

“It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rice v. Burks, 999 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1993). … The Decatur police do not qualify for immunity.