Case law

Robbins v. Bureau of Land Management

252 F. Supp. 2d 1286 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Mar 21, 2003

Qualified Immunity. … A federal employee is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established rights at issue.

Matthews v. Rakiey

38 Mass. App. Ct. 490 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · May 5, 1995

(b) Clearly established right. We must next inquire whether the defendant’s conduct nonetheless violated a clearly established right of the plaintiff. … Since the defendant’s actions were discretionary and they did not violate any clearly established rights of the plaintiff, qualified immunity was warranted.

Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. Peerce

132 S.W.3d 824 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2004

is inapplicable to his § 1983 claims and qualified immunity does not protect the individually-named official Appellants because their actions clearly violated Appellee’s well-established statutory and constitutional rights … Conversely, if the official’s actions violated a clearly established right or law, the immunity is lost and the official is hable for the violation.

EIVICH v. EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2025

Beyond reciting the standard for qualified immunity and reiterating their argument as to why the excessive force should be dismissed, defendants do not expressly argue how or why Robostello is entitled to qualified immunity … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Robert Bardo v. K. Clendenin

474 F. App'x 673 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 23, 2012

The district court properly held that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Bardo did not have a clearly established First Amendment right to retain the ad depicting side-view nudity. … Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Barnett v. Mount Vernon Police Department

523 F. App'x 811 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 3, 2013

The defense will succeed only where entitlement to qualified immunity can be established “based [solely] on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004). … The existence of either actual probable cause or arguable probable cause establishes qualified immunity from a false arrest claim, see Savino, 331 F.3d at 76; therefore, the sole issue on this appeal is whether the defendants

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 28, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff despite being held against a van in a knee hold while being handcuffed could point to nothing more

Leonard v. St. Charles County Police Department

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 5, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Further, to overcome qualified immunity, precedent must have clearly established that each Individual Defendant’s own actions “in the particular circumstances” at issue violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Jeffrey Leiser v. Karen Kloth

933 F.3d 696 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

for qualified immun- ity. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine that “protects govern- ment officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con- stitutional rights

Messerschmidt v. Millender

565 U.S. 535 · Supreme Court of the United States · Feb 22, 2012

“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 … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Perry v. Durborow

892 F.3d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 12, 2018

See Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107 (noting that to overcome qualified-immunity defense, “plaintiff must demonstrate . . . that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity” (emphasis added)). … Nevertheless, Durborow is entitled to qualified immunity unless Perry can also show that the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation. Riggins, 572 F.3d at 1107. B.

Abell v. Dewey

870 P.2d 363 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1994

The Court erroneously applied the law of qualified immunity, i.e. the law was not clearly established in 1990 that a state probationary employee had a property interest in continued employment, and Ap-pellee Dewey is therefore … Once a government *368 official asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 bears the initial burden of convincing the court that the constitutional right was clearly established.

Hubbard v. Stout

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Apr 23, 2018

Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Jones v. … Having found that the facts do not make out a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Krout v.

McClellan v. Chippewa, County of

District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 7, 2022

Sept. 8, 2022) (“A single district court opinion is not enough to pronounce a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”) (citing Hall v. Sweet, 666 F. … Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011) (“Many Courts of Appeals . . . decline to consider district court precedent when determining if constitutional rights are clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.”).

Doe v. Ohio State University

219 F. Supp. 3d 645 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 7, 2016

The Court “review[s] an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’ ” Back v. … Majarian is entitled to qualified immunity because Doe has stated no specific allegations that Majarian violated clearly established law by failing to disclose key impeachment evidence.

Apothio, LLC v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023

immunity. … that was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s alleged 14 misconduct).

Brown v. Jenne

122 So. 3d 881 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 1, 2012

Qualified Immunity Standard “ ‘Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established … As to the second determination for qualified immunity, the Thompson court found that the excessiveness of the force was clearly established at the time of the incident, which in Thompson occurred in 1998.

Finch v. Wemlinger

361 N.W.2d 865 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Feb 8, 1985

Because the right was not “clearly established” on that date; and since the federal doctrine of qualified immunity was applicable, see Finch v. Wemlinger, 310 N.W.2d 66, 70 (1981); under Harlow v. … Examination of these cases demonstrates clearly that Harlow fundamentally changed the prior law by abolishing the subjective element of the qualified immunity test. See also, Davis v.

Clark v. Stone

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jul 28, 2020

In the qualified immunity context, when determining whether a right is truly clearly established, a court must consider the “specific context of the case” and avoid construing rights too generally. Saucier v. … It is enough that such a right, even if it does exist in the Sixth Circuit, is not clearly established. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Priest v. Grazier

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 25, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” … unlawfulness of the conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”