Case law

Barnhill v. Board of Regents of UW System

158 Wis. 2d 278 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · Sep 27, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF SHARP AND LEE The relevant question before us is the objective question whether a reasonable official could have believed that discharging Barnhill was lawful, in light of clearly established law and … [defendants] liable for compensatory damages, and even though plaintiffs rights were sufficiently well established to defeat defendant's claim of qualified immunity.

Ward v. Murphy

330 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 16, 2004

More specifically, qualified immunity provides “substantial protection for caseworkers,” provided “it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their acts” would not violate clearly established rights. … Even if the court were to assume a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the specific rights alleged by the plaintiff are not clearly established. See, e.g., Tenenbaum v.

Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife

288 F.R.D. 500 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jan 14, 2013

, and qualified immunity for McKelvey,” which plaintiff “essentially ignores.” (# 18). … not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would know.” (# 17)(citing Harlow v.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.

Holeman v. City of New London

425 F.3d 184 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2005

Our review at this juncture is limited, however, to "circumstances where the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law." Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir.1992). … III 11 Qualified immunity "shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable

Schwartz v. Gwinnett County

924 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 15, 2013

A Qualified immunity of the 911 Defendants and Brown Qualified immunity protects government officials who perform discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities, unless their conduct violates “clearly established … state actor as violating a clearly established constitutional right. 13 To the extent the, 911 Defendants and Brown have been sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity for the Section 1983

Vaughan v. Cox

316 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2003

immunity. … We reinstate our prior decision in its entirety and supplement, by this opinion, our previous discussion of qualified immunity. SO ORDERED. .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HP Pelzer Automotive Systems, Inc. (TV2)

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 2020

and defendant affidavits represented “nothing more than conflicting witness testimony”); Wayne, 36 F.3d at 530 (upholding district court’s denial of attorney fees where defendants won summary judgment on the basis of qualified … immunity, but plaintiffs also sued for injunctive relief, which was not barred by immunity); Beard v.

Knight v. Pugh

801 F. Supp. 2d 1235 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 10, 2011

Qualified immunity protects police officers acting within their discretionary authority from civil liability in § 1983 actions so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Where, as here, qualified immunity is raised in a motion to dismiss, this Court must “look to the pleadings to see if the plaintiff has successfully alleged the violation of a clearly established right.” *1240 O’Rourke, 378

Riverdale Mills Corp. v. United States

337 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 16, 2004

In evaluating a claim for qualified immunity, a court must determine: 1) whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … The answer to each inquiry must be affirmative to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. Id. The Court is underwhelmed by defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Katherine Reynolds v. City of Anchorage, Leslie Watson, Jefferson County Officer

379 F.3d 358 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2004

Under qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, Mitchell [was] immune unless his actions violated clearly established law.”).

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Ron Rhodes

973 F.3d 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

The district court also rejected Hoggard’s § 1983 due-process and First-Amendment damages claims, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they had not violated a clearly established right.4 … “Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Cierra Dunn v. John Does

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2024

Unless he had arguable probable cause to seize the phones, he violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures of their property and is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Smith based on qualified immunity.

James Durham v. Robert Jones

737 F.3d 291 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 10, 2013

Jones contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … “To prevail under qualified immunity, [Jones] has to show either that there was no constitutional violation or that the right violated was not clearly established.” Gregg v.

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.)

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Fennell v. Simmons

951 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 3, 1997

right was not clearly established. … established, 7 so as to entitle the defendants to judgment on all of Torcasio’s claims of relief on the basis of qualified immunity.

Mowbray v. Cameron County, TX

274 F.3d 269 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 6, 2001

, when based on an issue of (2) was clearly established at the time of the law.” … She under the same test federal courts employ for has not shown Gavito violated any constitu- qualified immunity determinations under tional right, much less one clearly established

Workman v. Jordan

32 F.3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 16, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials from individual liability in a § 1983 action unless the officials violated “clearly *479 established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Once a defendant to a § 1983 action raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show both facts and law to establish that the defendant is not entitled to a qualified immunity. Dixon v.

Costopoulos v. Gibboney

134 Pa. Commw. 263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 26, 1990

In Harlow , the United States Supreme Court held that State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 action, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The appellant maintains that the State Troopers did not have probable cause to arrest him, thus, clearly violating his established constitutional rights.