Case law

Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners

130 N.M. 753 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2001

Merits of Qualified Immunity Issue {14} Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Clearly Established Law {16} Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that in October 1995 it was clearly established that law enforcement officers

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 19, 2022

With respect to qualified immunity, as to the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he law is clear in this Circuit regarding the prohibition against excessively forceful handcuffing.” Baynes v. … 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).

Michael Cantrell v. City of Murphy

666 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 4, 2012

“[A]n official does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” Kinney, 367 F.3d at 350. … Stated differently, Matthew’s asserted right was not clearly established on October 2, 2007. Because this putative right was not clearly established, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Marsh

105 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 22, 1997

"Even where the plaintiff's federal rights and the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was 'objectively reasonable' for him … 'clearly established' at the time [the action] was taken.")

Alecia Kirby v. L.F. Sherwin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2023

Qualified immunity shields “government officials perform- ing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages inso- far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for evaluating a claim of qualified immunity.

Gonzales v. Jeri Bolton

District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 1, 2021

Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct … violated clearly established law.’”

Cockrell v. Board of Regents of New Mexico State University

127 N.M. 478 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · May 7, 1999

An official is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment if the right allegedly violated was not so clearly established that an objectively reasonable, similarly situated official would have known that … date of termination did not clearly establish such a right in the school principal, and therefore, the officials were entitled to their individual defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Clark v. Dunn

195 W. Va. 272 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1995

The one difference in immunity cases is that the official’s act must be shown to have violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. … [the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Refoim Act], is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which

Jones v. Yanta

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, "[ a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty.

2021 S.D. 7 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Feb 10, 2021

the constitutional right was clearly established. … was clearly established at the time.

MORAN v. HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2025

The Officer Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. However, those arguments presently “rest on what are currently contested factual averments.” Velardo v. … City of Elizabeth, 436 F. 3d 397, 405 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Although qualified immunity is a question of law determined by the Court, when qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of fact, those issues must be determined

Wilmot v. Tracey

938 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2013

“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 … “[T]he second, ‘clearly established’ step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 269 .

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

487 Md. 282 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Williams v. Baird

273 Neb. 977 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2007

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacity, so long as an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … workers. 32 Whether an official may prevail in his or her qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 33 An official sued

Grose v. Caruso

284 F. App'x 279 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2008

a violation of clearly established law.” … When constitutional violations are not clearly established, state officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Schnabel v. Tyler

230 Conn. 735 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 9, 1994

Furthermore, “[e]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined, the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was objectively reasonable for … view that the clearly established law prong was dispositive of the qualified immunity defense.

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors

97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.

Jan McRaven v. Lt. McMurrian

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 20, 2009

was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court denied defendant-appellants qualified immunity. A detainee’s right to medical treatment is clearly established. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER KIM (16-07-0591 AND 17-02-0115, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 2018

at 123 (analyzing the exemption in the context of a claim of qualified immunity). … at 343 (holding "it is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises"); cf. State v.

Thomas v. Mason

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 23, 2024

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action 1 Thomas … be granted to the defendant on the basis of qualified immunity.”).