Case law

Spinks v. Township of Clinton

402 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2008

his defense of qualified immunity. … And he acknowledged the Court's two-part test for qualified immunity: 1) the officer violated a constitutional right of a plaintiff, and 2) that right was "clearly established." Saucier 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.

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 16, 2021

Qualified immunity protects public employees “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 … Under that standard, they are clearly protected by qualified immunity.

Potter v. City of Hanceville (In Re Potter)

354 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Nov 6, 2006

A plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by a showing that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … While there may have been a violation of a constitutional or statutory right of the plaintiff, the defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment as to qualified immunity if this right were not clearly established

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.

Lauren Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.

967 F.3d 519 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 23, 2020

whether the right was clearly established or not. … On the second prong of qualified immunity, I agree with the majority that to determine whether a law is clearly established, we need not find a case “directly on point.” (Maj.

Perez v. Duran

962 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2013

However, to find a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond debate.” … If a right is clearly established, an officer will still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer’s “actions were not objectively unreasonable at the time they were taken.” Lee v.

Myers v. Oklahoma County Board of County Commissioners

80 F.3d 421 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 1, 1996

In their summary judgment motions, defendants asserted their defense of qualified immunity. … right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama

67 F.4th 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2023

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … “Second, the plaintiff must show that the violation was clearly established.” Id. (emphasis and quotation marks omitted).

Pitchford v. Borough of Munhall

631 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2007

In order for a federally protected right to be “clearly established” for the purpose of a qualified immunity inquiry, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that … Pitchford’s “asserted right” is clearly established.

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.

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.

Kevin Holcomb v. Mark Lykens, Sean Smith, Joanne Pereria and John Gorczyk

337 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

“In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not … In order to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense, then, Holcomb must allege a deprivation of an actual constitutional right clearly established at the time of the events in issue.

Ronkin v. Vihn

71 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government 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 … Put succinctly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” Saucier v.

Horlock v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

890 F.2d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 1989

immunity from damages because defendants’ actions allegedly did not violate any “clearly established” right of plaintiff, as required in order to avoid the qualified immunity of public officials to such suits. … Horlock had no property interest, the defendants did not violate a “clearly established right” and thus were entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 due process claim.

Mucker v. Brown

462 S.W.3d 719 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 15, 2015

The teacher was not entitled to qualified official immunity. Id. … Mucker is not entitled to qualified official immunity.

James T. Giovanetti, D.D.S. And Patricia Ann Giovanetti v. Nicholas J. Tomasi, D.D.S. Wally McLaughlin Robert L. Schroeder, D.D.S. And Omar Whisman

25 F.3d 1048 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 19, 1994

The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the reason that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 4 It is well established that "[g]overnment officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies

38 F.4th 701 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 29, 2022

The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the -12- failure … The district court thus resolved this claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis rather than the constitutional violation prong.

Huddleston v. Maurry

841 S.W.2d 24 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Sep 2, 1992

To establish the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, a movant must show that: 1. he pleaded qualified immunity as an affirmative defense; 2. his position with the government enjoys a quasi-judicial status; 3. he was … In responding to an emergency they still were required to obey the safety standards established in article 6701d. We conclude that the officers have not established, as a matter of law, a basis for qualified immunity.

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

705 So. 2d 674 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jan 28, 1998

The legislature established a fund and procedures for carrying out the necessary remedial measures. … The language of the immunity sections, see supra notes 2 and 3, is also comprehensive as to the preclusion of administrative and judicial action against those who qualify.