Case law

Linda J. Clifford v. MaineGeneral Medical Center

91 A.3d 567 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Apr 22, 2014

of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that reasonable defendants would have known that their specific actions … Lyons, 666 A.2d at 99; see Webb, 1999 ME 74, ¶ 8, 728 A.2d 1261 (stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability under section 1983 if their conduct does not violate clearly established

James v. Lee

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 1, 2020

Qualified Immunity 21 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly 22 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate 17 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Commonwealth v. Markun

185 A.3d 1026 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2018

As described by the United States Supreme Court: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Pearson’s description of qualified immunity as providing immunity from suit, rather than a mere defense to liability, describes this situation.

Sabia v. Neville

165 Vt. 515 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Oct 18, 1996

They also argued that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. … Based on an objective standard, defendants did not violate any clearly established rights of plaintiff.

Geraldine Nicholson v. Miguel Gutierrez

935 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 21, 2019

Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity as a defense to a claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … Even if a constitutional violation occurred, qualified immunity nevertheless applies unless the violation was clearly established.

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 22, 1982

Therefore, officials who act beyond their scope of authority lack standing to assert a qualified immunity defense even in those instances where their behavior does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … . *150 If the law the congressional defendants are charged with violating was clearly established, their qualified immunity argument must be rejected without further consideration.

Torres v. Kernan

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 13, 2020

A court considering a claim of 8 qualified immunity must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 9 constitutional right and whether such right was clearly established, such that it would … Even if the 17 allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim for violation of § 5301, defendants are 18 entitled to qualified immunity because of the lack of clearly established law. 19 In Nelson

Barnes v. Fedele

337 F. Supp. 3d 227 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 2, 2018

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages "if his conduct did not violate plaintiff's *231 clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for … The qualified immunity defense in this case largely turns on two considerations: whether the statutory or constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, and, if so, whether

Herndon v. Henderson Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 23, 2023

Defendants are nonetheless entitled to 8 qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the right was clearly 9 established. … to be clearly established.

Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)

218 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2014

It held, however, that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore dismissed the claims against the officials on the ground of qualified immunity. 1 Gormley v. … The Appellate Division, nevertheless, concluded that that right was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed the federal civil-rights

McCall v. Williams

52 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 19, 1999

Although the right to due process of law, for example, is quite clearly established, the qualified immunity analysis law is not “to be applied at this level of generality.” Anderson v. … The court notes that the Kopf case, upon which the Vathekan court relied for its clearly established law, did not involve an assertion of the qualified immunity defense.

Yount v. Millington

117 N.M. 95 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Government officials are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, provided that their actions are objectively reasonable in the light of clearly established law. Harlow v. … We first note that the allegedly violated law that must be clearly established in the context of a qualified-immunity analysis is federal law, not state law. Estate of Himelstein v.

Jeffrey Mannoia v. David G. Farrow, Detective

476 F.3d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

In Saucier, the Supreme Court established a two-part test for resolving the issue of qualified immunity. … “Consulting a prosecutor may not give an officer absolute immunity ... but it goes far to establish qualified immunity.” Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, 648 (7th Cir.2004).

The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport

906 F.3d 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2018

And he maintained that no authority clearly established that Davenport’s actions were unconstitutional. … On the contrary, the Court has explained that “[t]he conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine . . . is that ‘where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not

Yates v. Stalder

217 F.3d 332 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 30, 2000

immunity grounds, claiming that his conduct did not violate any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. … Equal Protection The first step in qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a “violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Hare v.

Michael E. v. State

286 Neb. 532 · Nebraska Supreme Court · Sep 6, 2013

Whether a state official should pre- vail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the objective reasonableness of his or her conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law. 26. … Qualified immunity shields state officials in their individual capacities from civil damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have

JARVIS BY AND THROUGH JARVIS v. Deyoe

18 Brief Times Rptr. 1399 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1994

protected by qualified immunity. … However, in evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, “determining whether a right is clearly established requires a specific inquiry, not a general inquiry based on abstract rights.” Moody v.

Youngstown v. Carrier Servs. Group, Inc.

2026 Ohio 1032 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2026

qualified immunity claim. … .): Qualified immunity shields a government official from civil liability unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the

Leslie Atkinson v. Brent Godfrey

100 F.4th 498 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 2, 2024

Under that prong, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, at the time of the challenged conduct, the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional. … Instead, under prong two of the qualified immunity analysis, we held that the constitutional rights Atkinson claimed Godfrey violated were not clearly established at the time of Godfrey’s conduct.

Ryan v. City of Augusta

622 A.2d 74 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 1, 1993

Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretion *76 ary functions are immune from suit in actions brought pursuant to § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Because their actions violated Ryan’s clearly established rights, Logan and Todd are not entitled to qualified immunity. III.