Case law

Begay v. Hodel

730 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 24, 1990

On September 5, 1985, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on the immunity of federal officials to claims where the plaintiffs rights are not clearly established. See Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (government officials subject to damage awards when in violation of clearly established law).

Porter v. Caruso

479 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 26, 2007

In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is on the objective legal reasonableness of the official’s actions in light of clearly established law. … When evaluating a claim of qualified immunity the Court must assess whether it was clearly established — as of the date the defendant acted — that the alleged actions violated federal 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

Anderson v. Recore

446 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 4, 2006

II 33 "[P]ublic officials . . . are protected by qualified immunity from civil liability for actions taken in their official capacity, if those actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules then … Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York

640 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 22, 2009

For example, when a court may easily decide that the alleged violation of the constitutional right was not clearly established, there is no need to reach the constitutional question. Id. … Marti alleges that he is entitled to qualified immunity under federal and state law for that arrest. Marti is wrong. Qualified immunity does not cloak him for this arrest.

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 would … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.

Kirby v. County of Fresno

242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

Rodgers v. Hawley

14 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

Thus, assuming Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood violated Irvin’s right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances, the question for purposes of qualified immunity is whether this violation involved a “clearly established … Because they did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of their actions, Kedzierzawski and Kirkwood are entitled to qualified immunity on Irvin’s retaliation claim. 6 IV For the reasons

Pine v. Synkonis

79 Pa. Commw. 479 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1984

There was also evidence that damaged or missing guardrail had been left unrepaired for an extended period of time. 3 Qualified immunity Initially we must determine whether the Appellants are protected by the qualified immunity … In DuBree , the Court 4 analyzed prior law governing official immunity and established considerations for determining whether an official should be immune. These can be summarized as follows: 1.

Hall v. ACME MARKETS, INC.

110 Pa. Commw. 199 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 1987

Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978), held that officials are protected by a qualified immunity. … Id. at 545 , 393 A.2d at 295 . 2 Section 1 of the Act of May 18, 1923, P.L. 259. 3 In Witt , this court held that consecutive Secretaries of Banking were protected from suit by the immunity established in *206 DuBree .

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

865 F.2d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1989

MATHIS’S QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (RACE DISCRIMINATION) Mathis finally contends that he is immune from damages under the doctrine of qualified “good faith” immunity set forth in Harlow v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violated “clearly

Boyd v. Knox

47 F.3d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 15, 1995

The defendants then appealed the issue of qualified immunity. II. DISCUSSION An order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Henderson v. … Second, we must determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Riley

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 4, 2026

So, to avoid qualified immunity, Plaintiff must present evidence that these Defendants violated his statutory or constitutional rights and that it was “clearly established at the time” that their conduct did … Turning to qualified immunity, the Eleventh Circuit—citing Hale and other cases—determined the sheriff violated clearly established law. Id. at 1034.

Patricia Scott v. Clay County, Tennessee Chinn Anderson Billy Pierce Michael Thompson

205 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 1, 2000

as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … The procedure for evaluating claims of qualified immunity is tripartite: First, we determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established

Anilao v. Spota

27 F.4th 855 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

"Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability for conduct that 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity to police officers where a reasonable jury could find they "violated the plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights by conspiring to

CUEBAS v. Davila

618 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 31, 2009

Defendant Burgos’s right to qualified immunity The defense of qualified immunity shields “public officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, the first step to ascertain if Burgos is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity is whether Plaintiffs’ allegations claim a violation of clearly established law.

Lytes v. Smith

11 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 28, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity 8 because even assuming the court finds a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, their conduct did not violate “clearly established … Furthermore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights, the court need not address whether Plaintiffs asserted rights were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity.

Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell, State Trooper Mark Furlone and State Trooper John Ellsworth, Ronald Unwin v. Police Officer Robert Campbell

863 F.2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

clearly established law and thus were not qualifiedly immune. … A court must look to the "objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law," to determine whether the doctrine of qualified immunity applies.

Atkinson v. Taylor

316 F.3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 21, 2003

Atkinson has fulfilled Saucier 's first prong for denying qualified immunity by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … The majority misconstrues the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, and, a fortiori, wrongly deems its outcome "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity.