Case law

Butts v. City of Bowling Green

374 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jun 23, 2005

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth and ( … violation was clearly established and whether, in light of the clearly established law, Detective Raley’s actions were unreasonable.

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

Scocca v. Smith

912 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 17, 2012

This' is because, for qualified immunity, the Court must consider what the clearly established law was at the time of the sheriffs decision to deny Mr. Scocca’s application for a CCW license. … “Clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity means that “the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official' would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor

723 F.3d 91 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 17, 2013

jurisdiction only over qualified immunity appeal) … Martz and Taylor asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their Answer to Hernandez-Cuevas's complaint and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity on Hernandez-Cuevas's

Shaboon v. Duncan

252 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Further, these violations might be found to be so “clearly established” as to overcome Duncan’s qualified immunity defense.

Hamilton v. Leavy

322 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 28, 2003

Id. 58 Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, the District Court held that "Hamilton's right to be protected from known risks was clearly established in August 5, 1992." … As we have previously explained, however, "to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

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?

Solis-Alarcon v. United States

432 F. Supp. 2d 236 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 17, 2006

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory authority or con *246 stitutional … understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established right at issue.

Davis v. Carroll

390 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. Delaware · Sep 27, 2005

Whether Defendants are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Torres ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Amato

22 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 16, 2014

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Bakos v. Roach

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

Trammell v. Wright

489 S.W.3d 636 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2016

For example, “qualified immunity” is defined as the “[a]ffirmative defense which shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … A motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raised a genuine

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).

Whelehan v. County of Monroe

558 F. Supp. 1093 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 22, 1983

only to the qualified good-faith immunity asserted by the respondent in that case. … Therefore the risk of removal, even if made explicit by the examining officers, cannot be regarded as coercive because it existed as an ordinary and clearly apparent consequence of James’s failure to establish his innocence

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.

Clemmons v. Armontrout

477 F.3d 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 12, 2007

Qualified Immunity 10 We review de novo the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Investigator Brooks. McClendon v. … To determine whether a right is "clearly established," we ask "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted."

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.

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.

Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.