Case law

Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board

393 F.3d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 10, 2004

challenged state action was unconstitutional.”13 Even if we find that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, however, a defendant will still be entitled to qualified immunity if … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987); Barrow, 332 F.3d at 846 (second question in qualified immunity analysis is whether the “constitutional right was clearly established when the violation supposedly occured”). 13

Cobb v. Marshall

481 F. Supp. 2d 1248 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 14, 2007

City of Birmingham, the Eleventh Circuit held that in cases where qualified immunity is implicated, “some factual detail is necessary, especially if [the court is] to be able to see that the allegedly violated right was clearly … Qualified Immunity Defendant invokes qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs § 1983 equal protection claim against him in his *1259 individual capacity. (Doc. No. 5 at 15-16.)

Groom v. Fickes

966 F. Supp. 1466 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jan 2, 1997

Qualified Immunity The plaintiff also contends that, in an investigative capacity, Clark is entitled only to the more general qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, qualified immunity shields prosecutors and other government officials from liability for money damages when performing discretionary functions “if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Jones v. Allen

312 Ga. App. 762 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 21, 2011

Mathews did not establish that they were entitled to qualified immunity, as the record evidence establishes that the circumstances are similar to those present in Keenan . As in Keenan , it is undisputed that M. … Allen was entitled to qualified immunity. The Joneses argue that the holding of these cases — that MCG resident physicians are entitled to qualified immunity — should not be extended to Dr.

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

37 Kan. App. 2d 694 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Apr 27, 2007

The District claimed that Poston’s injury occurred in an area that was close enough to the indoor gymnasium to qualify as an “open area” for purposes of recreational use immunity. … The court noted that there was an intent by the legislature to “establish a broad application of recreational use immunity.” 273 Kan. at 592 . In Robison v. State, 30 Kan.

Perry, Peary v. the City of Houston and George Greanias

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Dec 27, 2002

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … in light of the clearly established rights.

M.W. v. Nassau County

2025 NY Slip Op 05550 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 8, 2025

The County moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending, inter alia, that it was entitled to governmental function immunity and qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services … Contrary to the County's contention, it "was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care"

Sevier v. City of Lawrence

853 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 27, 1994

As our jurisprudence makes clear, when a defendant raises qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish the defendant violated clearly established constitutional rights. City of Lakewood v. … In Medina we determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established, 960 F.2d at 1498-99 , and in Watson we remanded for a finding on that issue, 857 F.2d

Gorman v. Roberts

909 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Oct 17, 1995

However, even disputes over genuine issues of ma *1490 terial fact will not “preclude summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Courson v.

Linda A. Nelson, Paul R. Nelson, Evelyn Philbert, Laura Moore, and Charles Moore v. Denise Balazic, Dick Moore, and Bill Duncan

802 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1986

Having held that Balazic is only entitled to qualified immunity we must now determine whether her conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Even assuming arguendo that a constitutional right was violated, and we specifically do not address this issue, Balazic should be immune because such right was not clearly established at that time. See Martinez.

Armendariz v. Penman

75 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 7, 1996

immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional or statutory rights. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity only “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Graham v. Nadeau, et al.

2009 DNH 167 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 2009

A court ordinarily may move directly to the second step in the analysis and award qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the right on which his claim is based was clearly established when the defendants … Thus, Loven is entitled to qualified immunity for the same reason as Nadeau.

Hale v. Emporia State University

265 F. Supp. 3d 1236 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 14, 2017

Qualified immunity shields a government official from a money damages award in his or her personal capacity “unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established” at … . *1247 Here, the court concludes that plaintiffs Complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish that the individual defendants violated a clearly established .constitutional right.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

528 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

and  7 the qualified immunity defense. … what is clearly established law.

Duke v. Hamil

997 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 4, 2014

Did Defendant Hamil Violate a Clearly Established Constitutional Right? … Even if the Court concluded that Hamil did violate Plaintiffs First Amend-, ment rights, Hamil would still be entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.

Rankin v. Colman

10 Fla. L. Weekly 2056 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 29, 1985

Characteristically the Court has defined *239 these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. … Qualified immunity is also an affirmative defense and is not raised by the complaint here.

D'Agastino v. City of Warren

75 F. App'x 990 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 24, 2003

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Muzychka v. Tyler

563 F. Supp. 1061 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 18, 1983

Judith Tyler, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has moved for summary judgment claiming she is immune from liability on the grounds of qualified immunity. … Clearly, an FBI agent’s decision whether to stop and search a suspect is a discretionary function entitling the agent to the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Druckenmiller v.

Bittakis v. City of El Paso

480 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2007

When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … Qualified immunity for the officers turns on whether “a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the ... officers possessed.

Boyd v. Arnone

48 F. Supp. 3d 210 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects 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 … right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.