Case law

O'Connor v. Donovan

191 Vt. 412 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Apr 13, 2012

All were performed in good faith, i.e., they did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, and all were discretionary. Id. at 189-92 , 559 A.2d at 1081-83 . … The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 419 n.13 (1976).

Tom Johnson v. Patrick McCarver

942 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 1, 2019

was clearly established at the time of the incident. … McCarver and LaLuzerne violated Johnson’s clearly established right and qualified immunity does not apply.

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13

880 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 1994

immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v. … established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).

Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Romer

20 Brief Times Rptr. 1044 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

clearly established statutory or *90 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.”

Hazley v. Roy

378 F. Supp. 3d 751 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 26, 2019

"Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a court must dismiss a complaint against a government official in his [or her] individual capacity that fails to state a claim for violation of 'clearly established statutory or … C Once the right has been defined at the appropriate level of specificity, the next inquiry is whether that right was clearly established. Defendants challenge this component of qualified immunity, as well.

Jetta Elliott v. Dusty Morgan, in His Official Capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of Boone County

603 S.W.3d 570 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · May 13, 2020

Toward this end, police officers have qualified immunity from liability in their individual capacity unless they violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would know. Harlow v. … A motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is precluded only when the plaintiff has asserted a constitutional violation, demonstrated that the constitutional right is clearly established

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC)

872 F.3d 138 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 28, 2017

clearly established law. … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct

Estate of Wayne Anderson v. John Marsh

985 F.3d 726 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 15, 2021

At oral argument, Marsh’s counsel conceded that the qualified immunity analysis turns on “[w]hether Officer Marsh reasonably perceived that [Anderson] was making a threatening movement,” and that it was “clearly established … MARSH conduct ‘did not violate the [Constitution] and, in any event, did not violate clearly established law.’”

Johnnie Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland

917 F.3d 763 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 5, 2019

After discovery, Strickland and Heroux each moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for violations of constitutional rights that were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 233.

Vu, Kojoua v. Lozano, Kevin

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Nov 27, 2023

A government defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were “clearly established” at the relevant time. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Bartlett v. Cinemark USA, Inc.

908 S.W.2d 229 · Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · Aug 11, 1995

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields an official performing discretionary functions from liability for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional … Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 12 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing that Supreme Court has not clearly explained role of “discretionary functions” in qualified immunity analysis).

Shaw v. Williams

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2018

When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show two things: (1) that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at … Ct. at 552 (a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).

Vollette v. Watson

937 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 2013

However, the same qualified immunity test that requires this Court to ask “whether a given right was clearly established requires [the Court] to define that right ‘at a high level of particularity.’ ” Id. … immunity because the controlling law was not “clearly established.”

T.A. VS. ERICK MELGAR (L-0466-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2018

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (stating the doctrine of qualified immunity, protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, "a defendant cannot have qualified immunity if she was deliberately indifferent; a reasonable [prison official] could not believe that her actions comported with clearly established law

King v. State

242 Cal. App. 4th 245 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2015

But Defendants are only entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiff], they violated no clearly established constitutional right. … The state and Tawney premise their 26 qualified immunity claim on an extremely narrow, factually detailed view of what the clearly established law would be in this case.

Cozayatl Sampedro v. Schriro

377 F. Supp. 3d 133 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 28, 2019

Sampedro cannot establish that he violated a clearly established right and, therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity in any event. … similar circumstances. 4 See Allah, 876 F.3d at 59 (holding defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where relevant precedent *143 did not clearly establish that a substantive due process would result from disputed

McCoy v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021

See Mot. at 17–18. 1 Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability 2 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate 3 clearly established statutory or constitutional … actions, 18 as clearly established law).

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

Jeremy Boudoin v. Terral Harsson

962 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [§] 1983 action, unless the official’s conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known … In denying Harsson qualified immunity, the district court cited Nance v.

Volkman v. Ryker

736 F.3d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2013

Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights In addition to ruling against Volkman outright on the issue of constitutional protection, the district court found that the defendants were shielded by the doctrine of qualified … Governmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy “qualified immunity,” meaning that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or