Case law

Bradley v. Village of Greenwood Lake

376 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Doyle v. Dukakis

699 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 4, 1988

Qualified Immunity. The Court need not rest its decision on such a broad determination, however, in light of the qualified immunity from suit available to these defendants. In Harlow v. … The Supreme Court wrote that if a judge, on summary judgment, determines that “the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail since a reasonably competent public

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

Dearden v. City of Detroit

403 Mich. 257 · Michigan Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1978

The Court reached this conclusion after noting the statutory power of the commission to regulate all public utilities was qualified by the phrase, "except as otherwise restricted by law”. … .; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.

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

KRL v. Estate of Moore

512 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 16, 2008

If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Although our prior decision granted Riebe qualified immunity, it denied qualified immunity for Hall.

Gallardo v. DiCarlo

203 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, C.D. California · May 13, 2002

Qualified Immunity DiCarlo asserts that she is entitled to dismissal of the FAC on the grounds of qualified immunity. 11 In Section 1983 claims, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damage … She is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the FAC. D.

Bollinger v. Oregon

172 F. App'x 770 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 28, 2006

Under the law of the case doctrine in our circuit, subsequent proceedings should follow the law of the case established in a previous appellate decision unless: “(1) the decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would … Since, in the posture presented to us, this qualified immunity question is a purely legal one, and Bollinger I held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, that holding controls this appeal as law of

Ross v. Lichtenfeld

755 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2010

A public official defendant performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity when “[his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, Lichtenfeld would be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the constitutional prohibition he violated was not clearly established, or (2) a reasonable person in Lichtenfeld’s position would not have believed

Kade v. Workie

238 F. Supp. 3d 625 · District Court, D. Delaware · Feb 27, 2017

actions are protected by qualified immunity if she can show that the ‘offending’ conduct did not ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, setting aside the issue as to whether Defendant could even assert the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs constitutional right is clearly established in light of the established law.

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Second, regarding defendant Quick’s claims of absolute immunity, plaintiff argues that immunity is only warranted where officials “can prove that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must ask whether the official engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of a person of which

Ford v. Anderson County

102 F.4th 292 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 22, 2024

of qualified immunity. … This court’s unpublished opinions cannot clearly establish the law for the purposes of qualified immunity, but they nevertheless may “aptly illustrate[] the established right.” Cooper v.

Jeffrey Davis v. Bim Lowers

132 F. App'x 302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2005

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).2 Qualified immunity protects from liability government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The burden then shifts to Davis to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. The threshold inquiry is whether Davis’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Id.

Monteria Najuda Robinson v. William Sauls

46 F.4th 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2022

To receive qualified immunity, an official “must establish that he or she acted within the scope of discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Hardigree v. … Robinson’s clearly established rights. A right is clearly established when it is “suffi- ciently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Ex Parte Turner

840 So. 2d 132 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 21, 2002

and qualified immunity. … Turner's affidavit provides uncontroverted sworn statements that sufficiently establish qualified immunity from the § 1983 action.

Williams v. Ballard

466 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 28, 2006

I The district court concluded that qualified immunity shielded defendants, precluding damages, because Williams’s right to procedural due process was not a “clearly established statutory or constitutional … This makes sense, given the different goals of AEDPA and qualified immunity.

State v. Mason

724 P.2d 1289 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Sep 2, 1986

Although the Arizona Supreme Court granted parole board members only qualified immunity in Grimm v. … Qualified immunity, as contrasted with absolute immunity, would leave the parole board liable for conduct involving discretionary functions violating “clearly established statutory or *1293 constitutional rights of which

Wilson v. City Of Des Moines

293 F.3d 447 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 7, 2002

If the court determines that a constitutional right was violated, then the Court stated that the next question that should be considered is "whether the right was clearly established." Id. 9 Graham v. … The Court analyzed the applicability of qualified immunity by using the two-part inquiry established in Saucier.

Salman v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

104 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. Nevada · Jul 5, 2000

Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only “only insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A Plaintiff bears the burden of proof regarding whether a right is clearly established. Id.

George Hedges v. George Randy Poletis

177 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 3, 1999

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Due Process Claim Hedges had clearly established due process rights.