Case law

Slough v. Telb

644 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for civil damages so long as their- conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … No clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants entry into Plaintiffs home. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in entering Plaintiffs home. b.

Nassau County Employee "L" v. County of Nassau

345 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 29, 2004

“The *301 qualified immunity doctrine shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “In determining whether a particular legal principle was ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity,” the Second Circuit has considered three factors: “whether the right was defined with reasonable specificity

Mowbray v. Kozlowski

724 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 25, 1989

Under Harlow , state officials are protected by qualified immunity if the conduct complained of by the plaintiffs "did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should … Qualified immunity is " immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

Stephen Hanes v. Thomas Zurick

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

the court indicated that the right was clearly established. … was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

Edwards to establish that qualified immunity does not apply. See Bailey, 843 F.3d at 480. … A right may be clearly established for qualified im- munity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right;

Neu v. Corcoran

869 F.2d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 3, 1989

We therefore have jurisdiction to review the immunity ruling. 8 2. Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity shields 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 known."

Lawson v. Abrams

863 F.2d 260 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

related to that decision, noted that prosecutors may assert only qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their administrative or investigative tasks not intimately associated with the judicial process. … performed rather than on the office itself, for, as the district court observed, it is established that prosecutors have absolute immunity for some of their acts but only qualified immunity for others.

Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District

164 F. Supp. 2d 839 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

immunity because Plaintiffs allege no affirmative *846 conduct on the part of either; and 4) Me-drano is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Consequently, a defendant in that situation might not have violated a clearly established constitutional right and qualified immunity might still be available. 10 .

Douglas Rush v. Barbara Perryman

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush's First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush's rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush's right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

McDonald v. Krajewski

649 F. Supp. 370 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 13, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Krajewski also requests dismissal of plaintiffs complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects the official from liability for damages only when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County

229 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · District Court, D. Montana · Jan 24, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability so long as the officers’ conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Clearly Established Right Because a constitutional violation has been found, the next step in the qualified immunity analysis is to ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.

Malone v. Chambers County Board of Commissioners

875 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 21, 1994

Malone contends that qualified immunity does not protect the Defendants from suit where, as here, their conduct deprived an individual of a clearly-established, federally-protected right. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the “legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law clearly

Dixon v. Wallowa County

336 F.3d 1013 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

If so, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to their *1021 qualified immunity on Dixon’s Fourth Amendment claim, ■ arguing that the law was not clearly established

Weaver v. State of California

63 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1998

Defendants also asserted immunity under the qualified immunity doctrine, alleging that they are shielded from liability unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was reasonable and that the qualified immunity doctrine applied.”

L.C. v. Utah State Board of Education

188 F. Supp. 2d 1330 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 28, 2002

the right was clearly established in light of the specific factual context of the case. … hearing process as she did was not clearly established at the time.

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

638 P.2d 1116 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1981

The Court added that “[a] compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights … The Regents did not act with such disregard for the established law as to deny them qualified immunity. There had been no relevant pronouncements by this Court or by the Tenth Circuit interpreting Oklahoma law.

Marshall v. Walker

958 F. Supp. 359 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 27, 1997

Qualified immunity applies “if a reasonable officer could have believed [plaintiffs arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Hunter v. … Qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Eversole, 59 F.3d at 717 ; Biddle v.

Bailey v. Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County

956 F.2d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, Bailey was required to show that the defendants violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Mitchell v. … The district court reasoned that the law became “clearly established” on that date; thus, Caldwell and Hayes were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Mason v. Village of Babylon, New York

124 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 20, 2000

clearly established constitutional rights. … At the very least, McManus is clearly entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim. McManus was informed of an outstanding warrant and acted thereupon.