Case law

Marson v. Thomason

438 S.W.3d 292 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

His general duty to look out for the safety of the students is clearly discretionary in nature, and he is just as clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, he does not have qualified immunity, and can be sued individually.

Liu v. New York City Police Department

216 A.D.2d 67 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1995

However, we find that the individual defendants should be granted qualified immunity from plaintiffs civil rights claims. … A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Clue v. Johnson

179 F.3d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 10, 1999

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability if the official’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the pertinent time or if it was objectively … Instead, they contend that their activities raise a public concern under clearly established law and that Johnson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See infra.

Brodie v. Summit County Children Services Board

51 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 23, 1990

When considering a motion for summary judgment for the defense of qualified immunity, the judge may determine not only the currently applicable law, but whether the law was clearly established at the time the alleged act … “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. * * *” Id. at 818-819 . See, also, Anderson v.

ANTONIO LACY v. JOHN COUGHLIN & another.

100 Mass. App. Ct. 321 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 6, 2021

"Thus, if a court decides to grant qualified immunity because there is no violation of clearly established law, it may never answer whether there was a constitutional violation." … While I agree with Justice Massing that the right was clearly established here, the current case is yet another example of the collateral damage done by a qualified immunity doctrine which aggressively terminates cases at

Creamer v. Sceviour

652 A.2d 110 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jan 12, 1995

Qualified Immunity A plaintiff may maintain a section 1983 5 claim against governmental employees only if they are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The two-part test for denial of qualified immunity is (1) whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) whether those rights were so clearly established that the defendants would have known that their

BLASH v. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE AND PULASKI COUNTY GEORGIA SHERRIF'S OFFICE

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 2019

To establish the defense of qualified immunity, a defendant must first show that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority in performing the challenged conduct, and if so, the plaintiff has the burden to … When a mixed motive theory of discrimination is advanced, qualified immunity can still apply because it is clearly established that “state officials ‘can be motivated, in part, by a dislike or hostility toward a certain

STERLING HOTELS, LLC v. MCKAY

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 11, 2025

The Sixth Circuit panel went on to hold that Plaintiff overcame Defendant’s qualified immunity defense, because it is clearly established that an individual must have a hearing before being deprived of a significant … Violation of Clearly Established Constitutional Rights Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Akau v. Villareal

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2026

immunity "cannot be sustained" because her actions violated a "clearly established" right under the Hawai#i Constitution. … In answer to the SAC, Villareal asserted that she "is not liable for Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and/or damages on the basis of qualified immunity and/or qualified privilege."

State v. Sims

871 S.W.2d 259 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Feb 1, 1994

to have been violated were clearly established at the time of the official’s actions. … In their brief, relators extensively discuss the issue of whether the actions of Mauro and Giberson violated a clearly established right.

Lipsky v. Cronin

District Court, D. South Dakota · Mar 31, 2025

immunity’s second prong, the clearly established prong.” … Thus, even if any deprivation did occur, it was not clearly established, and Captain Wainman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Leahy v. Conant

436 P.3d 1039 · Alaska Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2019

We conclude that the superintendents were entitled to qualified immunity because the prisoner’s right to a religious exception from the mail policy was not “clearly established” under existing law. … Courts in some cases have concluded that prisoner’s religious rights are “clearly established” such that prison officials accused of violating them are not entitled to qualified immunity. In Hayes v.

Fowler v. Block

2 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, C.D. California · May 15, 1998

(2) Was such right clearly established at the time of the alleged offense? (3) If there is a clearly established right, is the issue of qualified immunity [ ] properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment? … Under the two-part test, there'is qualified immunity if: (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was “clearly established;” and (2) under that “clearly established” law, a reasonable officer could have believed that

Kelly v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE

815 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2011

was contrary to clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.

Von Derhaar v. Stalbert

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

“[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff's version of those disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Id. … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry demands plaintiff demonstrate there was a clearly established right at the time of the challenged action.

Kevin Laury v. Matthew Rodriguez

659 F. App'x 837 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

Actions on the Ground Price’s actions following the initial takedown are similarly not entitled to qualified immunity. … show that there was a constitutional violation and that the right at issue was clearly established.

Robert Hall v. Medical College of Ohio at Toledo

742 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 28, 1984

II Qualified Immunity “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Thus, we cannot conclude that any other “clearly established” constitutional rights were violated in Hall’s expulsion from MCO.

E. D. v. Daniel Sharkey

928 F.3d 299 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 1, 2019

Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct … Alleged constitutional right clearly established. We further agree that a detainee's right to be protected by state officials aware of ongoing sexual assault was clearly established at the time of Sharkey's conduct.

Andrews v. Department of Environmental Protection

1998 Me. 198 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Aug 3, 1998

Qualified immunity shields “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Several federal circuit courts have observed that a public employee’s free speech right, as guaranteed by the Pickering decision and its progeny, will rarely be “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis

Trump Tight, LLC v. Bell

188 F. Supp. 3d 565 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 18, 2016

The defendants move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. … a history of criminal violations qualified as an unlawful seizure, in light of clearly established law.