Case law

Ervin v. James

874 S.W.2d 713 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 10, 1994

Cronen seemed to dismiss, out-of-hand, the idea of proving qualified immunity by summary judgment proof. We believe that such an approach would render the qualified immunity defense illusory. … We conclude that Ervin and Lilley established their right to summary judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of qualified official immunity.

Brooks v. Whiteford

384 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jun 21, 2019

The Supreme Court has recently explained that when a court is deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, "the clearly established right must be defined with specificity," that the court should not "define … Thus, the fact that the right to be from excessive force, as a general principle, has long been clearly established is not dispositive of whether an individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Arnold

696 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2010

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Crooks Johnson held that an officer’s statement that he observed the plaintiffs car cross the center line was sufficient to establish probable cause and qualified immunity.

Franklin Building Corp. v. City of Ocean City

946 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1996

qualified immunity. … “clearly established”_ In instances of violations which are not clearly established, a showing of improper motive will not defeat a qualified immunity claim. Grant, 98 F.3d at 125 n. 6. This is one such case.

Montgomery v. Conrad

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 20, 2022

When qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations must “plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant's conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established law at … established prong of the qualified immunity defense.

Rafael Navarro v. Sherman Block

250 F.3d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 11, 2001

After reviewing the legal standards for qualified immunity, the court held: 9 [T]he law is not clearly established that a policy of indemnifying punitive damage awards violates constitutional rights . . . . … Though much of the analysis under qualified immunity and the merits of a §§ 1983 claim overlaps, the issue of whether a right is "clearly established " is relevant only to qualified immunity. 11 Regardless, the explicit holding

Ricker v. Leapley

25 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 1994

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … We have concluded that both Leapley and Weber are entitled to qualified immunity because Ricker has failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Claude E. Woods v. Larry Smith

60 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 1995

whether the plaintiff has asserted the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Although the Court recently emphasized that denials of eleventh amendment immunity, like denials of qualified immunity, fall within the limited category of cases that warrant collateral review under Cohen v.

Commonwealth v. ELM Medical Laboratories, Inc.

33 Mass. App. Ct. 71 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jul 24, 1992

Because the qualified immunity of public officials is personal to the official, see Rodrigues v. … ”), even if established, it would not necessarily preclude the liability of the sovereign (in the absence of its immunity), if the jury were to find that Ridley and Frechette, with the protection of qualified immunity, violated

Greenwood v. of New York

163 F.3d 119 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

. § 1983 ; it did so on the ground that the officials had qualified immunity. 1 We disagree with the court's conclusion that Greenwood's property right in his clinical staff privileges was not clearly established and that … "Even defendants who violate [clearly established] constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under

Robinson v. White County

452 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 3, 2006

. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1338 , 164 L.Ed.2d 53 (2006), the test for qualified immunity is: 10 Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated clearly … If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established.

Elba Estrada-Adorno v. Jose R. Gonzalez, Etc.

861 F.2d 304 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 10, 1988

He is immune unless, at the time he took action, the right at issue was clearly established. Anderson v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (state official is immune from damages liability unless his action violates a right that was “clearly established” at the time the action

Kathleen Benison v. George Ross

765 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 3, 2014

qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time the lawsuit was filed. 3 Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not … Therefore, if a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) “a violation of a constitutional right” and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the]

Shoop v. Dauphin County

766 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 1991

Courts have granted public officials performing discretionary functions qualified immunity from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Shoop’s arrest, the facts which are established without contradiction do not establish probable cause or reasonable belief in probable cause on the part of the deputies sufficient to award qualified immunity for the arrest

Bonamo v. Betz

92 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Jan 19, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), applies equally to MCRA claims, Duarte v. … As a matter of law then, the judge properly concluded that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under the MCRA. Judgment affirmed .

Johnson v. City of Chester

10 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 1998

Qualified and Legislative Immunity Defendants next seek qualified immunity for Police Commissioner Butler, and both legislative and qualified immunity for Mayor Wilson, for their alleged actions. … Such rights are among the most well-known and clearly-established in our Constitution.

Keller v. Elyea

496 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

Elyea was entitled to qualified immunity. He argues that he had a clearly established constitutional right to have his medical conditions addressed, and that his letters sufficed to establish Dr. … The district court indeed viewed this issue through too narrow a lens: there need not be a case “on all fours,” with identical facts, in order for a constitutional right to be clearly established for the purposes of qualified

Fleming v. State University of New York

502 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 6, 2007

clearly established legal rules then in effect.” … complains violated clearly established law.”

Galloway v. City of Abbeville

871 F. Supp. 2d 1298 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 2, 2012

Qualified immunity on Galloway’s unlawful arrest claim (Count B) Duhaime also invokes the qualified immunity doctrine to shield him from Galloway’s Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim. … Historically the Supreme Court required lower courts to decide the constitutional issue before inquiring into whether the claimed right was clearly established. See, e.g., Scott v.

Pike v. Budd

133 F.4th 74 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 28, 2025

Pike filed a § 1983 action against Budd, which the district court dismissed, finding that Budd was entitled to qualified immunity because case law did not clearly establish that Budd would violate the Equal Protection … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects reasonable government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.