Case law

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.

State v. Mason

724 P.2d 1289 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 2, 1986

Although the Arizona Supreme Court granted parole board members only qualified immunity in Grimm v. … Qualified immunity, as contrasted with absolute immunity, would leave the parole board liable for conduct involving discretionary functions violating “clearly established statutory or *1293 constitutional rights of which

Johnson v. City of Detroit

944 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability under section 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the officer defendants cannot claim qualified immunity for their conduct on April 11, 1994 on the grounds that the right asserted in Johnson’s complaint is not clearly established.

Scott Furman Maxey, a Minor, by His Mother & Next Friend, Dianna Maxey v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Heriberto Martinez, Individually John Dentist, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually, and James Borren, Individually, Joseph Donald Cole, by His Mother & Next Friend, Virginia Cole v. Robert Fulton, Individually Julia Teska, Individually Harold E. Goldman, Individually Luis A. Reinoso, Individually John Doctor, Individually Jane Doctor, Individually John Dentist, Individually, and James Borren, Individually

890 F.2d 279 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 29, 1989

The Court reasoned that a denial of qualified immunity is conclusive because the court is deciding either that (1) the defendant violated clearly established law and is not entitled to immunity, or (2) that if the facts are … Mitchell itself recognizes that there will be times when discovery is proper: 13 Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled

Brassell v. Turner

468 F. Supp. 2d 854 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 15, 2006

A two-step approach is used to evaluate qualified immunity claims. … If the plaintiffs allegations could make out a constitutional violation, the court then asks “whether the right was clearly established — that is, whether ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 of which a reasonable person … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.

Veneklase v. City of Fargo

904 F. Supp. 1038 · District Court, D. North Dakota · Feb 17, 1995

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit if, at the time of the challenged acts, it was not clearly established that those actions would violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … The qualified immunity defense may still be viable even when a plaintiff establishes the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, if the defendant can demonstrate the “objective legal reasonableness” of the

Scott v. City of Cleveland

555 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 2008

State actors faced with a civil suit under § 1983 may be immune from liability for damages, but they enjoy a qualified, not absolute, immunity Harlow v. … clearly established.

Exford v. City of Montgomery

887 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 24, 2012

United States, 457 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (“In the absence of binding precedent, we look to whatever decisional law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for *1222 qualified immunity purposes … the relevant law clearly enough to defeat qualified immunity.

Alburquerque v. Faz Alzamora

357 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 9, 2004

Defendants additionally claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known. … of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law.”

Xiques v. Knight

25 F. App'x 251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 5, 2001

We conclude that the defendant, a state prosecutor, is entitled to qualified immunity because her statements did not violate “clearly established” federal law, a requirement for recovering damages. Anderson v. … Creighton immunity may be overcome only by clearly established federal law, not state law.

Reid v. Simmons

163 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 30, 2001

Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “ ‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Brandon v. City of New York

705 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2010

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 857 (2d Cir.1996) (“[P]ublic 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 … violated a clearly established right.”

Krish Singh v. City of Phoenix

124 F.4th 746 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 26, 2024

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Qualified Immunity The district court held, and we agree, that Plaintiff has established a plausible, even though not conclusive, constitutional violation at step one of the qualified-immunity analysis.

Massie v. Cobb County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1302 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2017

Accordingly, even if Gallimore’s conduct did violate Massie’s Fourth Amendment rights, that, violation did not run afoul of clearly established law, and Gallimore is entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v. … In' response, Massie argues in a cursory fashion that “the record in this case clearly establishes that ... Gallimore acted with actual malice.” [44] at 19. ...

Wagner v. County of Cattaraugus

866 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 19, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY I also find that defendant Travis is not protected by qualified immunity. … Therefore, the first part of the qualified immunity consideration, that is, whether the police conduct here violated clearly established constitutional rights is not an issue in this case.

Estate of Burke v. Mahanoy City

40 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1999

violated clearly established federal law.” … The Supreme Court has explained what it means by clearly established law for the purpose of qualified immunity: The contours of the right must be suffi.ciently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is

Lopez v. Youngblood

609 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2009

Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 16). … Re: Court Returnees, Qualified Immunity and Eleventh Amendment Immunity 20-21).

JAKLIN SUZETH GOTAY & Others v. JULIANN CREEN & Others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Mar 21, 2025

Qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Eaton v. Estabrook

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 26, 2023

By requiring the law to be clearly established to a particularized degree, qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” … Relevant to the second question, “even where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘