Case law

Diaz v. Bullock

268 F. Supp. 3d 640 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

The basis for the Court’s finding as' to qualified immunity is that to the extent there is a constitutional right at issue, it is not clearly established. … As a result, and at a minimum, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right is not clearly established.

Baylor College of Medicine v. Tate

77 S.W.3d 467 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · May 23, 2002

on the issue of qualified immunity”); Austin Indep. … Clearly, this section applies to, among other things, assertions of immunity from suit. It does not apply to assertions of immunity from liability. Hence, it is necessary to determine the nature of Baylor’s claim.

James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

983 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

the defendants therefore had qualified immunity from suit. … protected by qualified immunity.

Hill v. Walsh

884 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 2018

Because the law on the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was not clearly established at the time of the incident, we uphold the district court's entry of judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court also noted that even if the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, they had a "strong case" that they were entitled to qualified immunity because "there is no clearly established Supreme

Liffiton v. Keuker

850 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 21, 1988

Even if they are not entitled to absolute immunity, they may be entitled to qualified immunity if their actions were objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Harlow v. … Such an action is neither clearly prosecutorial in nature, entitling him to absolute immunity, nor objectively reasonable under clearly established law, entitling him to qualified immunity. 24 Therefore, the complaint states

Susan Vaughn v. Greene County, AR

438 F.3d 845 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 17, 2006

Individual Liability of Sheriff Langston “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional … right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.

Turturro ex rel. Turturro v. City of New York

28 N.Y.3d 469 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2016

In the specific proprietary field of roadway safety, a municipality is afforded “a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” (Friedman, 67 NY2d at *480 283 ). 1 The qualified nature of … This qualified immunity, which applies in a specific field of proprietary functions, is separate from the governmental function immunity defense, which applies only to governmental functions, as explained.

Burton v. Richmond

370 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 2, 2004

Because we determine that there was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … II. 5 Governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 when performing discretionary functions unless they violate clearly established law in executing their duties. Burton I, 276 F.3d at 976 .

El-Amin v. Tirey

817 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 8, 1993

The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on “the objective legal reasonableness” of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the action … Consequently, defendants Ring and Hemby are protected by qualified immunity.

John Doe, as Next Friend of Jane Doe, a Child v. Hillsboro Independent School District, Larry Zabcik

81 F.3d 1395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 17, 1996

the grounds for denying a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity: “(a) a determination about pre-existing ‘clearly established’ law, or (b) a determination about ‘genuine’ issues of fact for trial.” 15 The … given facts showed a violation of clearly established law.

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.

Federman v. County of Kern

61 F. App'x 438 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 15, 2003

If a constitutional right would have been violated were a plaintiffs allegations established, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established in light of the context of the case. Id. … Next, the law on excessive force was clearly established by April 21, 1998, the day Federman was shot and killed.

Scotto v. Almenas

143 F.3d 105 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 5, 1998

Most executive officials receive qualified immunity, whereby "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified Immunity 28 The district court did not consider, and the parties have not briefed, whether or not Almenas, as alleged by Scotto, violated clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable

Cox v. Roskelley

359 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 20, 2004

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, without making any qualified immunity argument. … The second summary judgment motion asserted, for the first time, a qualified immunity defense.

Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District

402 F.3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 4, 2005

denied the teachers’ request for qualified immunity. … Conclusion Because the searches in this case did not violate clearly established law, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. The denial of summary judgment is accordingly REVERSED.

Burke v. Town of Walpole

405 F.3d 66 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 26, 2005

Shea, and Trooper McDonald should receive qualified immunity on the ground that their conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. See Burke, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24897, at *25 (Det. … Bausch to be one of the officers who arrested Burke and reach his qualified immunity defense. 23 The other police defendants raise no argument about the absence of clearly established law.

John Burns v. Brad Cole

18 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 29, 2021

-4-  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity analysis requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

Gomez Candelaria v. Rivera Rodríguez

218 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … Accordingly, they argue that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established”.

Robinson v. City of West Allis

239 Wis. 2d 595 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2000

When faced with the defense of qualified immunity the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a defendant's conduct violated " 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … While it is clearly established that an individual has a right to be free from excessive force, our qualified immunity inquiry must be much more particularized as to the facts of each case. Anderson v.

State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Stjernholm

935 P.2d 959 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Apr 7, 1997

When only qualified immunity applies and the suit is for damages, a section 1983 claim must allege violation of a clearly established constitutional right and material facts of misconduct, under circumstances which reveal … To withstand a motion for summary judgment in the qualified immunity context, violation of a clearly established constitutional right 15 and material facts of misconduct must be pleaded.