Case law

Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Lopez-Rivera

878 F.2d 1478 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 25, 1989

Harlow, supra (government officials enjoy “qualified immunity” where the law does not “clearly” forbid their actions). … In Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259 , this circuit said that the question in a “qualified immunity” case, such as this one, is “whether [at the time of dismissal] it was clearly established that employees in the particular

Blackshear v. City of Miami Beach

799 F. Supp. 2d 1338 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 26, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD “[Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant Wyatt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Ippolito v. Meisel

958 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 1997

Since plaintiff asked for a declaration that Sutcliffe violated “clearly established laws,” however, and this is the same standard used to determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, see Wachtler, 35 F … .3d at 80 , and we have found that Officer Sutcliffe is entitled to such immunity, it follows that he cannot have violated “clearly established laws.”

Parks v. Pomeroy

387 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, he is entitled to qualified immunity. … This "clearly established" standard must be met in order to permit the denial of qualified immunity. For these inquiries, we conduct a de novo review. See, e.g., Tuggle v.

Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department

228 F.3d 388 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 2, 2000

To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we must determine: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, … As noted above, we have observed that at least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions resulting in the violation of a detainee’s clearly established

Causey v. Parish of Tangipahoa

167 F. Supp. 2d 898 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Apr 12, 2001

As stated above, the question of whether a public official is covered by qualified immunity entails a two step inquiry. First, the court must find that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … These claims are clearly insufficient to overcome Sergeant Price’s defense of qualified immunity and the Court shall deal with the allegations in summary fashion.

Howes v. Hitchcock

66 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 9, 1999

conduct violated clearly established law.” … To prevail on their qualified immunity defense, the officers must first establish that a prudent police officer with the information they collectively possessed reasonably could have believed that probable cause to arrest

Moreno v. Baca

431 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

The court denied the deputies' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that Moreno's constitutional right to be free from suspicionless searches was "clearly established" at the time of the detention … Both contentions are untenable. 29 Appellants' first argument in favor of qualified immunity — that it was not clearly established that Moreno had any right to be free from suspicionless searches because of his parole status

Novoselsky v. Brown

822 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2016

Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Claim We turn next to Brown’s qualified immunity defense to Novoselsky’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. … Qualified immunity protects government agents from liability for their actions so long as they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Sabrina Jordan v. John Howard

987 F.3d 537 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2021

a genuine dispute of material fact for trial and that the officers were protected by qualified immunity—because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established rights by using deadly force in response to threatened deadly … The district court found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate McShann’s clearly established constitutional rights and their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.

D.H., Ex Rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District

830 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

Clearly Established Law “A right may be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes in one of three ways: (1) case law with indistinguishable facts clearly establishing the constitutional right; (2) a broad … established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity against D.H.’s § 1983 claim.

Gooden v. Howard County Maryland

917 F.2d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 9, 1990

A The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … was no clearly established law guiding their conduct.

DONNA SMITHERS v. TA'TANISHA TWEEDY

Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jun 24, 2025

“The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.” (Citation omitted.) Siegrist v. Herhold, 365 Ga. … “Under Georgia law, official or qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability.

LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al. v. HALLIBURTON

328 Ga. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Jul 31, 2014

Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including that defendants were entitled to sovereign and/or qualified immunity. … And “[a] waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the party seeking to benefit from that waiver.” Ruff, 315 Ga. App. at 456 (footnote omitted).

Limones v. School District of Lee County

111 So. 3d 901 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 6, 2013

“It is clearly established that one who undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with reasonable care.” Union Park Mem’l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64, 66-67 (Fla.1996). … as establishing a civil liability.”

People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc.

7 Cal. App. Supp. 5th 7 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Dec 19, 2016

Immunity—L.A. Mun. Code Section 45.19.6.3, Subdivision E In regard to L.A. Mun. Code section 45.19.6.2, the trial court determined defendants did not qualify for immunity under L.A. Mun. … Thus, the use of the disjunctive clearly expresses that the failure to obtain registration either in 2011 or 2012 will suffice to disqualify the defendant from immunity.

in Re: Texas Department of Transportation

510 S.W.3d 701 · Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Oct 14, 2016

While the motion did not expressly refer to sovereign immunity, it asserted that Flores could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because TxDOT filled the vacant position with an older employee. … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, the plaintiff in a true replacement case must show that he or she was (1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified

S.R. Nehad v. Neal Browder

929 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 11, 2019

Qualified Immunity A government official’s entitlement to qualified immunity depends on “(1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time … Browder is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong. D.

Arthur Knight v. City of Miami

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

CARNES, Circuit Judge: This appeal by a law enforcement officer from the denial of qualified immunity presents us with these three issues: 1) whether there was an absence of probable cause for the officer’s arrest … Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1283 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Arguable probable cause, not the higher standard of actual probable cause, governs the qualified immunity inquiry.”); Montoute v.

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.