Case law

Christopher P. ex rel. Norma P. v. Marcus

915 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 27, 1990

, because the EAHCA’s applicability was not clearly established at the time the action arose. … Qualified Immunity for Violations of the EAHCA “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents

594 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2008

This Court held in its August 4, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 2986389 , that there is no question of law as to whether the following rights were clearly established: (1) the right not to be terminated from employment at a public uni-versify … established law.

Garcia-Rodriguez v. Gomm

169 F. Supp. 3d 1221 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the. time of the challenged conduct.” … Pursuant to Quinn , 780 at 1004, the court determines that this issue is most efficiently resolved by first analyzing the “clearly established” prong of the SLC Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Santiago-Mateo v. Cordero

109 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 20, 1997

Public officials alleged to have committed civil rights violations are entitled to raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The defense is not available, however, if the official's conduct violates a federal right that was clearly established at the time of the infringement. See Harlow v.

Michael Jones v. City of St. Louis

104 F.4th 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 17, 2024

failing to respond to his requests to be released based on the court order deprived Davis of a clearly established liberty interest. 375 F.3d at 719. … qualified immunity claims.

Benavidez v. Howard

931 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In this motion, Howard asked the state court to prohibit Plaintiffs and others “from engaging in conduct directed at 5 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that the right was “clearly … Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 744 (2011) (“Because [the defendant] did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.”)

Davis v. Billington

775 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity As noted previously in this Memorandum Opinion, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. 2.

Smith v. Norton Hospitals, Inc.

488 S.W.3d 23 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 4, 2016

immunity. … established under the law.

Al-Ra'id v. Ingle

69 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law. … Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not violative of clearly established law.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1996

The court also reserved ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Hernandez v. Parker

508 P.3d 947 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

Sheriff Parker asserted qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. … Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

Cook v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CTY. OF WYANDOTTE

966 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 29, 1997

The Court also finds that Officer Drake is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity would shield Officer Drake from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that plaintiffs arrest was lawful in light of clearly established. law and information which Officer Drake possessed

Mejia v. City of New York

119 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The basic test for determining whether a public official is entitled to assert qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … : qualified immunity shields public 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 have known

Flynn v. Burns

289 F. Supp. 3d 948 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 29, 2018

do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Once a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the defendant's action violated a clearly established right. Estate of Escobedo v.

Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto

790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 · District Court, N.D. California · May 11, 2011

Qualified Immunity Doctrine 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 … The immunity inquiry, on the other hand, asks whether the right Plaintiff claims was clearly established. Id.

Hines v. French

157 Md. App. 536 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 2, 2004

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … Rather, the question is whether, confronted with the facts of this case, reasonable police officers should have known that clearly established constitutional law prohibited the methods used in the search.

Smith v. Arkansas Department of Correction

103 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" … of whether the alleged facts support a violation of clearly established law.

Salter v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 04384 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 2025

We reject MEAN's contention that the phrase "manufacturer or seller of a qualified product" in section 7903 (5) (A) should be read to divorce "manufacturer" from "qualified product" and grant immunity to any manufacturer … As a result, we conclude that MEAN established that it is "engaged in the business" of manufacturing a qualified product under the PLCAA by establishing that it "devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing [its qualified

City of Houston v. Daniels

66 S.W.3d 420 · Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Feb 21, 2002

Sovereign immunity protects governmental entities from liability whereas official, or qualified, immunity protects individual governmental employees. DeWitt v. Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1995). … However, section 51.014(5) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that the denial of a motion for summary judgment may be appealed if it is based on an assertion of qualified immunity. City of Houston v.