Case law

Martin v. O'Daniel

507 S.W.3d 1 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2016

The officers were not entitled to dismissal of the malicious prosecution action on grounds of absolute immunity or qualified official immunity. … But, it is also a fact that defeats the defendant’s assertion of qualified official immunity.

Laviage v. Fite

47 F.4th 402 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Shearl Danenberger v. J. Thomas Johnson, Mark Frech and Bill Fleischli

821 F.2d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 4, 1987

Supreme Court stated that “whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id. at 3018 (quoting … prior to Hermes , and, thus, the defendants in this case would still be entitled to qualified immunity since any such right enunciated in Hermes was not previously clearly recognized.

Jerry Smith, Jr. v. Melvin Finkley

10 F.4th 725 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2021

vi- olated was not clearly established. … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Wiers v. Barnes

925 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, D. Delaware · May 3, 1996

are not shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity because the right to be free from excessive force had been clearly established; (4) defendants’ conduct gives rise to cognizable claims under state … There, plaintiff argued that qualified immunity could not apply to his case, because where the law is clearly established and proof of the elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case would defeat immunity, no qualified immunity

Gregg v. Ham

678 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 30, 2012

The defense of qualified immunity involves a two-step pro- cedure "that asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established." Henry v. … Id. at 558.1 Noting the "essentially legal nature of the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established," we held that "the legal question of a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity under a particular

Bettie Smith v. City of Minneapolis

754 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2014

We elect to address the “clearly established” qualified-immunity prong at the outset here, because it is dispositive of the case. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. … As with the first encounter with Officer Devick alone, we choose to begin with the clearly established prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.

D'Angelo v. Crofts

294 F. App'x 254 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 19, 2008

D’Angelo’s reliance on the advice of non-defendants not to bother to take any actions indicative of an intent to establish residency because any reclassification petition would be futile does not establish unconstitutional … Because Appellants have not shown that the MUS has applied an irrebuttable presumption of non-residency, we do not reach the issue of qualified immunity. AFFIRMED.

Jimerson v. Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 15, 2024

They saw a maroon vehicle parked in front of the _____________________ 2 A nonprecedential opinion “cannot be the source of clearly established law for qualified immunity analysis.” … In light of Hartsfield’s guidance interpreting the clearly established law in Garrison, the Jimersons rebutted Lewis’ assertion of qualified immunity. Our unpublished decision in Rogers v. Hooper, 271 F.

Warren v. Keane

196 F.3d 330 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 1999

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate such law.

Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

955 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 4, 1992

Cureton, 882 F.2d 211, 215-16 (6th Cir.1989). 19 To determine if the defendant police officers' actions violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity … We held that: 24 [T]he rights the district court cites as having been clearly established were not particularized rights as required by Anderson and, thus, were not sufficient to deny the defendants qualified immunity.

Kevin Frazier v. Edward N. Bailey

957 F.2d 920 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 24, 1992

their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Lorenzo Oliver v. Debra Roquet

858 F.3d 180 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 24, 2017

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Sharp v. … That is, unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery,” Mitchell v.

Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho

623 F.3d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 6, 2010

reasonable and does not violate clearly-established federal rights. … ”; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.

Leyba v. Renger

114 N.M. 686 · New Mexico Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1992

We hold that the NMROIA abolished any common-law absolute immunity available to review organization participants prior to its enactment, establishing instead a qualified immunity. … The immunity, however, is not absolute, but qualified.

Madden v. Town of Greene

36 Misc. 3d 852 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

between various acts afforded absolute and qualified immunity. … In this case, the Appellate Division held that defendant “did not establish its entitlement to qualified immunity as a matter of law for its highway planning decisions with regard to the original design and placement of the

Gloria Taylor v. City of Milford

10 F.4th 800 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2021

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … When assessing a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, we ask: “whether the plain‐ tiff’s allegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right, and whether the right was clearly established at the time of defendant

Pennington v. Metro Govt Nash

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 10, 2008

We also have no need to determine whether Bishop and Hagar are entitled to qualified immunity. See McKinley v. … of a clearly established right”) (emphasis in original).

Reggie Smith v. Thomas A. Coughlin, III K. Collyer, Sr., Counselor, B/s/a K. Collyen, Counselor

938 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 28, 1991

To pierce the shield of qualified immunity, the right alleged to have been violated must have been clearly established at the time the purported improper action was taken. … A right is clearly established if “in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness [of the action taken is] apparent.” Id.

Eugene A. Johnson v. Estate of Mark A. Laccheo, and James Overstreet, City of Eastlake

935 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 5, 1991

Therefore, before granting defendants qualified immunity, we must decide: 1) whether Johnson has identified a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and, 2) whether a reasonable police officer in either … To summarize, defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense because they did not violate a clearly established law when arresting Johnson; and, even if such law were violated, a reasonable police officer in like