Case law

Pearson v. City of Paris

839 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 2, 1993

Qualified Immunity- Defendant Ford’s final argument is that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a “government official performing discretionary functions.” … Once a court determines as a matter of law that a legal standard governing the governmental action at issue was clearly established, there' is no qualified immunity. Id.

Edwards v. Parish

District Court, D. South Carolina · Jun 8, 2022

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (Qualified immunity protects officials who “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). … Harris, 65 F.3d 347, 359–60 (4th Cir. 1995) (“If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is improper as long as there remains any material factual dispute regarding

Wilson v. Meeks

52 F.3d 1547 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 20, 1995

However, qualified immunity is not a defense when officials’ actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. Quezada, 944 F.2d at 718 . … We conclude the facts here do not violate a clearly established duty under the constitution. The district court erred in refusing to grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity. VI.

French v. City of Casey

361 F. Supp. 3d 1011 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 9, 2019

"When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … But the absence of such an opinion does not preclude a finding that the law was clearly established and so the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 1285 .

Dingwell v. Cossette

327 F. Supp. 3d 462 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 7, 2018

Qualified Immunity: Police Chief Cossette and Detective Williams Qualified immunity must be decided "at the earliest possible stage in litigation." Hunter v. … K-H Corp. , 968 F.2d 1489 , 1494 (2d Cir. 1992) ). *476 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Lamle v. Eads

134 F.4th 562 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 9, 2025

Eads urged dismissal based on qualified immunity. 2 To avoid dismissal, the applicants needed to allege facts that would plausibly show the violation of a clearly established right. Robbins v. Okla. ex rel. … Given the lack of a clearly established constitutional violation, Ms. Eads was entitled to qualified immunity.

Metro. Dade County v. Chase Fed. Housing

737 So. 2d 494 · Supreme Court of Florida · Jun 10, 1999

In conjunction with the statewide program, the Legislature established a fund to clean sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. [2] The Act provides that the owners or operators of dry cleaning establishments, who could … CONCLUSION We find that the Legislature has clearly expressed its intent through the language of the statute as well as the structure and purpose of the Act to apply the immunity provisions found in subsections 376.3078(3

Miner v. Novotny

304 Md. 164 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 4, 1985

The privilege, and the resultant immunity enjoyed by the publisher, may be either absolute or qualified. As we explained in DiBlasio v. … immunity.”

Opinion No. (1998)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 1998

Qualified immunity sometimes is erroneously referred to as "good faith immunity." Before Harlow v. … Id. at 818-19 . ¶ 13 In its place, stands qualified immunity, which is a two-pronged, objective test: Does the plaintiff assert violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and was that right clearly established

Lee v. Cline

384 Md. 245 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 13, 2004

that the plaintiff had presented no evidence of malice to overcome Cline’s qualified immunity. … Consequently, judicial opinions dealing with the well-established limitations upon public official immunity furnish no authority for judicially creating similar limitations upon the broad statutory immunity granted by the

Flint Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth

68 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 1995

The court concluded that the DOC officials should have known they were required to follow competitive bidding procedures under clearly established state law, thus, they were not entitled to … qualified immunity from § 1983 monetary liability.

Boswell v. County of Sherburne

849 F.2d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions * * Mitchell v. … This court has in the past taken a broad view of what constitutes “clearly established law” for the purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry, requiring some but not precise factual correspondence with precedents and demanding

Franz v. Lytle

997 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

Finding no relevant, clearly established legal norm on the issue evidenced by the split in the Circuits, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity. … At the time of defendant’s actions, the law was clearly established that the information the officer possessed rendered the present war-rantless searches objectively unreasonable barring his claim of qualified immunity so

Coffin v. Brandau

614 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity.9 On August 7, 2007, the Coffins lodged this appeal challenging the district court’s holding that no clearly established law provided fair warning to the Deputies … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door.15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.”

Joseph v. Patterson

795 F.2d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 2, 1986

If the law which the defendant’s conduct is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense must fail and discovery proceed. … If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune and summary judgment is proper. Windsor, 719 F.2d at 165 .

Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago

932 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In any event, the court said, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the stop did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from li- ability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Sossamon v. LONE STAR STATE OF TEXAS

713 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … With respect to a ruling on qualified immunity, the first question a court should address is “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Siegert v.

Hayes v. Terrance Howard

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 23, 2021

Qualified immunity defense is thus “an immunity from suit rather than a mere 4 Alvarez v. … Once qualified immunity is asserted, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established

City of Alamo v. Holton

934 S.W.2d 833 · Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · Dec 19, 1996

The City of Alamo appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … The terms "qualified immunity,” "official immunity," "quasi-judicial immunity,” "discretionary immunity” and "good faith immunity” refer to affirmative defenses available to governmental employees sued in their individual

Maldonado Maldonado v. Lausell

681 F. Supp. 111 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 22, 1988

Before the Court can reach the merits of this claim, however, we must examine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit, i.e., whether, at the time of Maldonado’s discharge, “clearly established law” … At a minimum, defendants further argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this fourteenth amendment claim because it was not clearly established in February 1985 that Maldonado would be entitled to a pretermination