Case law

Scales v. District of Columbia

973 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2009

, ultimately holding that he was entitled to immunity because the allegations, taken as true, had “fail[ed] to establish that under the particular circumstances here [Officer] Young violated his clearly established Fomth … if the right was not clearly established at the time, the officer may still enjoy its protection.

Goard v. Crown Auto, Inc.

170 F. Supp. 3d 915 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 21, 2016

Defendants’ have failed to establish Qualified Immunity Howard, Ball, Cook, and McKinley assert that qualified immunity shields them from liability for their actions. Dkt. 28 at 4.. … established' for purposes of qualified immunity.

Daugevelo v. County Of Sullivan

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 22, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … If an officer’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Williams v. The City of Jackson

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 29, 2021

that defeat a qualified[-]immunity defense with equal specificity.” … that the law is clearly established”).

(PC) Melendez v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2024

The law is also “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity 17 if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates th[e] right” at 18 issue. Taylor v. … In other words, the correctional 16 officer was entitled to qualified immunity if there was no clearly established right to properly 17 conducted security checks.

Artis v. Cyphers

100 Md. App. 633 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 8, 1994

The Mitchell Court continued, at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 : “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified im *650 munity is entitled to dismissal before … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

Hamrick v. State

426 S.C. 638 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 15, 2019

Accident reconstruction requires expertise,6 and from the outset, the State sought to establish Officer Harris's qualifications as an expert in accident reconstruction. … Second, the trial court failed to make the necessary findings that the State established the foundation required by Rule 702. See Council, 335 S.C. at 20, 515 S.E.2d at 518.

Lancie v. Giles

132 Pa. Commw. 255 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 1990

The present standard for determining if qualified immunity applies was first established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), in which case the U.S. … Supreme Court stated that qualified immunity will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person should have known. Id. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Brooks v. Sweeney

299 Conn. 196 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 14, 2010

The court further explained that, under federal law, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil actions arising out of their discretionary acts if such acts did not violate clearly established … clearly established law.

Hughes v. City of Houston

District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 10, 2022

of qualified immunity. … The opinion further notes that qualified immunity should have been granted even if a constitutional violation had been pled because (1) “much more is needed” to demonstrate a clearly established law than for a court to

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

284 Conn. 502 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Dec 4, 2007

clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law.” … The plaintiff contends that the municipal defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law under the fourth amendment when they effected an unlawful seizure of her property by

(PC) Williams v. Pilkerten

District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020

Qualified 19 immunity shields government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly 20 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Harlow … right, and if so, whether 28 the right was clearly established.

Kyle Petersen v. Anthony Sims, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 18, 2023

The district court properly dismissed Petersen’s action on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time

Doe v. Leach

128 N.M. 28 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1999

The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the federal right so violated was a right “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Harlow v. … clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Hope v. Pelzer

536 U.S. 730 · Supreme Court of the United States · Jun 27, 2002

The Court of Appeals had assumed that the defendant in a criminal case was entitled to a degree of notice “ ‘substantially higher than the “clearly established” standard used to judge qualified immunity’ ” in civil cases … “[T]he object of the ‘clearly established’ immunity standard is not different from that of ‘fair warning’ as it relates to law ‘made specific’ for the purpose of validly applying § 242.

City of Lakewood v. Brace

20 Brief Times Rptr. 981 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 24, 1996

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity to appeal a district court’s denial of summary judgment on that defense if the issue on appeal is whether the constitutional right that was allegedly violated was “clearly established.”

Lavigne v. Forshee

307 Mich. App. 530 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2014

“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 … Thus, in the case of a police officer, qualified immunity will not apply if the officer transgresses a right that was “clearly established,” when “‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that [her] conduct was unlawful

Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn

280 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 25, 2001

The Court held that Title I of the ADA, which prohibits the states, municipalities and other employers from “discri-minat[ing] against a qualified individual with a disability because of th[at] disability ... in regard to … These cases are unpersuasive because they focus exclusively on whether Congress clearly expressed its intention to condition waiver on the receipt of funds and whether the state in fact received the funds.

Dupree v. Village of Bellwood

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 13, 2022

Even if they did, they maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of their actions violated clearly established law. … Officers sometimes make mistakes; qualified immunity works to immunize them from damages suits arising from those mistakes so long as there is no transgression of clearly established law.

Seamons v. Snow

84 F.3d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 8, 1996

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be