Case law

PRATT v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2019

established right.” … App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether [defendant] was deliberately indifferent, he has not carried his burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity.”); Carter

Correll Thomas v. C. Dillard

818 F.3d 864 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 5, 2016

Because it was not clearly established at the time, that the perceived domestic violence nature of an investigation was .insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, however, we hold Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity … He contends it was clearly established that Dillard’s conduct was unconstitutional when the events took place in September 2010, and.Dillard therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity.

CORDERO v. KELLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2023

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no law that clearly established that a prison cannot limit bulk religious mailings sent directly to an inmate through the prison mailroom … 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 have

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District

425 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2006

Therefore, each defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity unless she violated a clearly established constitutional right of plaintiff Christopher Klump. In other words, there is a two-part test. … Further, even if the defendants did violate Christopher Klump’s constitutional rights, they would have qualified immunity if the constitutional right were not clearly established.

Blankerhorn v. City of Orange

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 7, 2007

“Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an  BLANKENHORN v. … Saucier’s requirement that the plaintiff’s asserted right be clearly established “does not mean that the very action at issue must have been held unlaw- ful before qualified immunity is shed.” Wall v.

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2022

clearly established statutory or 7 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the law 21 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 22 based on qualified immunity is appropriate.

Wood v. Moss

572 U.S. 744 · Supreme Court of the United States · May 27, 2014

Officials are sheltered from suit, under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, when their conduct “does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights” a reasonable official, similarly situated, would have … The agents further maintained that they were sheltered by qualified immunity because the constitutional right al- leged by the protesters was not clearly established. The District Court denied the motion, see Moss v.

Barrows v. Larry

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. (Dkt. 119-1, at 9-10). … established right that overcomes qualified immunity); Cavalieri v.

Gore

District Court, D. Utah · Oct 23, 2025

to this action and then they can raise the qualified immunity defense themselves.”). … Antoine, 508 U.S. at 432 (“The proponent of a claim to absolute [judicial] immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.”). 38 Obeslo, 2017 U.S. Dist.

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 18, 2020

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 641 (6th Cir. 2001) (the right to be free from “excessively forceful handcuffing” is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes).

Feingold v. Hill

360 Pa. Super. 539 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1987

With respect to Judge Hill, the law in Pennsylvania is well established that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error or performed with malice … Clearly such activity would have fallen within the parameters of Mr. Bala’s duties. As such, Mr. Bala is immune from suit in the instant matter under the protection of quasi-judicial immunity.

DAVIS v. BURKE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).

Alex Wayne Morton v. Jeremy Kirkwood

707 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Qualified immunity does not apply where the facts show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and where the law clearly established those rights at the time of the alleged misconduct. … Kirkwood would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity unless Morton can show that the law clearly established his rights at the time of the putative misconduct. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

Vasquez v. Coughlin

726 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 1989

The Second Circuit has clearly articulated the instances when a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … But see Gittens, 720 F.Supp. at 43-44 (immunity granted based on finding that in 1987 the requirement was not clearly established in this Circuit).

Hamner v. Tuscaloosa County School System

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 17, 2021

James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that “clearly established principles of law will seldom if ever suffice to strip a defendant of qualified immunity”). … violated a clearly established right, which she has not done.

Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Judge

Illinois Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

City of Aurora, 71 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (1978) (AThis court has clearly established the rule that once a governmental unit >adopts a plan in the making of public improvements,= it owes a duty to a plaintiff to maintain those improvements … AThe above regulations clearly establish that, contrary to the dissent=s statement *** a broken yellow line does indicate a passing zone.

Reeves v. The City of Springfield

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 2025

right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id.

Harden v. Byers

128 F.4th 1156 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 14, 2025

To carry her burden on the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis, Works must show that Byers’ constitutional misconduct violated her clearly established right. … Byers, therefore, violated a clearly established constitutional right, and Works overcomes the second prong of qualified immunity.

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts

195 F.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 8, 1999

The defendants contend, however, that they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because reasonable officers in their position could have believed that their interrogation did not violate “clearly established rights … The Right is Clearly Established To be “clearly established” for the purpose of overcoming qualified immunity, “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

Robbins v. IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

160 N.W.2d 847 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 5, 1968

In determining the extent of the qualified immunity granted in the first clause of rule 141(a) the key words are “injustice or undue hardship.” Sanders v. Ayrhart, 89 Idaho 302 , 404 P.2d 589, 594 . … We are unable to determine from the interrogatory as framed whether plaintiffs seek to secure matters given absolute protection under category (2), matters given qualified immunity under category (1) or both.