Case law

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.

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

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

Mills v. Cvitkovich

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 30, 2024

Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields state actors “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … They do state off-hand that Mills has not pointed to any clearly established right which would overcome Officer Cvitkovitch’s claim to qualified immunity (id. at PageID 208), but the lion’s share of Defendants’ Motion rests

City of Phoenix v. Yarnell

184 Ariz. 310 · Arizona Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1995

Without ever reaching the issue of the detectives’ immunity, the court concluded that the detectives did not violate Smith’s clearly established constitutional rights. … What the County missed is that the City escaped liability not because of the detectives' qualified immunity but because there was no clearly established constitutional right that was violated. .

Burley v. Miller

241 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 2017

to qualified immunity. … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, “the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established.” McDonald v.

Coleman v. Merritt

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2025

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 22 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated 2 was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the plaintiff meets this burden, then the 3 defendant bears the burden of establishing

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.

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.

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.

Leveto v. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … If a reasonable official would have known that the conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity is generally not available.2 See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense or dinarily

State of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc.

439 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2015

Turning to the State's assertion of qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal, it is well-established that the doctrine balances the need to hold public officials accountable for improperly … We ask (1) "whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged" and (2) "whether the right was clearly established." Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.

Douglas v. Galloway

568 F. Supp. 966 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 25, 1983

The Governor bases his immunity claim on two different doctrines: the qualified immunity accorded state executive officials in § 1983 cases, as enunciated in Harlow v. … 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.

Betances v. Fischer

140 F. Supp. 3d 294 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2015

APPLICABLE LAW “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2010) ("Even 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

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.

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.

Longval v. Commissioner of Correction

448 Mass. 412 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Feb 23, 2007

immunity, the right *419 must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … immunity was available to the defendants because the law, before our decision in Haverty , was not “clearly established.”

State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services v. Doherty

167 P.3d 64 · Alaska Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2007

11 Second, "if so, was that right clearly established?" … . 18 Unlike the test for qualified immunity, the test for a facially valid $ 1983 claim does not require the court to consider whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established or whether a reasonable officer