Case law

Morales v. Busbee

972 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1997

The qualified immunity doctrine provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has recently made clear that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ellis v. White

156 N.C. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2003

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Therefore, ruling on a defense of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and

Dwayne Volkman v. Lee Ryker

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2013

Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights In  addition  to  ruling  against  Volkman  outright  on  the issue of constitutional protection, the district court found that the  defendants  were  shielded  by … Governmental  actors  performing  discretionary  functions enjoy “qualified immunity,” meaning that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

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

DeVries v. State

221 Ariz. 201 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Mar 31, 2009

or thwarting established public policy. … Here, the trial court determined that qualified immunity applied if the jury found that the factual prerequisites under A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(7) were established, thereby allowing the jury to determine only the disputed facts

Gulledge v. Smart

691 F. Supp. 947 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jul 29, 1988

In considering a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the court must focus on the particular facts involved in the alleged deprivation and whether the law at the time of the alleged deprivation was “clearly established … to qualified immunity as to that claim.

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Powers v. Northside Independent School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

Freeman v. Blair

862 F.2d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 30, 1989

See 793 F.2d at 171-73. 3 We turn to the issues of qualified immunity. … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claims concerning defendants' failure to obtain a search warrant, and that none of the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to

Pray v. City of Sandusky

49 F.3d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 21, 1995

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate either on the basis that the right allegedly violated was not at the time "clearly established," or if "clearly established," was one that a "reasonable" person in the defendant's … violate clearly established rights."

Estate of Jaquez v. City of New York

104 F. Supp. 3d 414 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY A. … “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

Jones v. Butt

643 F. App'x 926 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 25, 2016

The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to “overcome the defendant’s privilege” by proving that the defendant violated a federal constitutional or statutory right that was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … It is clearly established that “an arrest without probable cause violates the right to be free from an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.”

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

Merrill v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources

219 W. Va. 151 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 12, 2006

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity because Appellants had failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that DHHR had violated any clearly established law.

Van Emrik v. Chemung County Department of Social Services

220 A.D.2d 952 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1995

Plaintiffs contend that questions of fact exist as to whether defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity from liability provided by Social Services Law § 419. … Here, the X rays were clearly not medically indicated.

Murray-Ruhl v. Shiawassee

246 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 29, 2007

Katz’s two-pronged qualified immunity analysis asks whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established. … Garner provides a “clearly established” right that fulfills the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Did Jenkins’s Conduct Violate a Constitutional Right?

Al-Turki v. Robinson

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 12, 2014

-2- motion for qualified immunity. … Defendant contends that even if her alleged actions violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of her alleged violation.

Roger Fairley and Richard Gackowski v. Evan Fermaint, Noberto Bercasio, and Fred Coffey

482 F.3d 897 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2007

It was clearly established long before the events of which plaintiffs complain that state actors may not assault witnesses in federal litigation. … Only if the answer is affirmative does the court inquire whether the official enjoys qualified immunity.

Jones v. Lopez

262 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 31, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise for the first time in their Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment the defense of official or qualified immunity. … Here, defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense but have not pleaded good faith or established they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority.