Case law

Watkins v. Millennium School

290 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 18, 2003

Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions, unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … In elaborating on “clearly established,” the Supreme Court stated in Anderson v.

Natal-Rosario v. Puerto Rico Police Department

609 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity This Court will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Caldero. 4 Qualified immunity protects public officials from the specter of damages liability for judgment … Therefore, this Court will deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. 4.

Lorne Battiste v. Sheriff of Broward County

261 F. App'x 199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

A defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Berryman v. Niceta

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … those rights were clearly established at the time.”

Visser v. Magnarelli

542 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 9, 1982

Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980), clearly requires a defendant to plead a defense of qualified immunity, as defendants-councilors have done here. … Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 899-900 (5th Cir. 1982) (violation of clearly established state law vitiates objective prong of good faith immunity defense).

Dohner v. Neff

240 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 11, 2002

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity for Neff To find a clearly established constitutional right, a district court must find binding precedent from the Supreme Court, its court of appeals, or itself. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n. v.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka

328 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 8, 2003

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Kennedy v. Lehman

328 F. App'x 16 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 6, 2009

A grant of qualified immunity allows public officials to be “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Be *20 cause the Individual Defendants did not violate a First Amendment right clearly-established as of 2002, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court must be reversed.

Justice v. Danberg

342 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 17, 2009

The court disagreed, noting that qualified immunity required a two-step analysis: first, whether there was a constitutional violation, and second, whether the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established … qualified immunity.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County

705 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2013

Governmental actors performing discretionary func- tions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity on Travis’s excessive-force claim because he did not violate clearly established law.

Pam Good v. Barbara Olk-Long

71 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 8, 1995

We need only to pass upon the question of qualified immunity. … It is well settled that qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official

Harper v. Carbon County School District

105 F. Supp. 3d 1317 · District Court, D. Utah · Apr 24, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields from liability “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … But even if the court concluded that Defendants did violate a right, qualified immunity still applies because the right is not clearly established.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Stephen G. Loftus v. Ester Clark-Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2012

The district court ruled that Clark-Moore and Ferguson were entitled to qualified immunity because neither social worker had violated a clearly established federal right of Loftus or his children. … Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity because the threats that she allegedly made did not violate any clearly established federal right.

Perez v. School Board

917 F. Supp. 2d 1261 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 17, 2013

Furthermore, because the Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense, Plaintiff must allege that the officers violated a clearly-established right. Williams, 102 F.3d at 1182 . … When qualified immunity is raised, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that, at the time of the beating the law clearly established that the force used by the officers was excessive.

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.

Danny M. Bennett v. Dennis Lee Hendrix

423 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2005

DISCUSSION Our procedure in assessing qualified immunity is well-established. … Clearly Established Law The final step in the qualified immunity inquiry is determining whether the law was clearly established so as to put the defendants on notice that their behavior violated the plaintiffs’

Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green

165 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 24, 2016

Clearly Established Right Defendants, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, assert that Casada is entitled to qualified immunity. … The Pollard court did not address the qualified immunity inquiry of whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established. .

Rodriguez v. Village of Ossining

918 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2013

Thus, qualified immunity provides protection to police officers faced with an excessive force claim unless the officers (1) “violated a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … a qualified immunity defense.' ” Caban v.