Case law

Robinett v. Carlisle

928 S.W.2d 623 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 15, 1996

... qualified immunity.” … Police officers are immune if they could have reasonably believed their actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. Hunter v.

Garcia v. Las Vegas Medical Center

112 N.M. 441 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1991

One issue is qualified immunity. A public official is not liable for damages under Section 1983 unless the right violated by the official was clearly established at the time of the violation. … Although Ex parte Romero may be persuasive precedent, it cannot be said to make the federal law clearly established so as to overcome qualified immunity if decisions in other jurisdictions are to the contrary.

Connell v. Signoracci

153 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 21, 1998

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss if the allegations of the complaint fail to “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Behrens v. … Qualified immunity shields officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Aldarondo Lugo v. Municipality of Toa Baja

329 F. Supp. 2d 234 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 6, 2004

Then, Defendants paid lip service to the first and third prongs of the qualified immunity test, and addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry at length: whether the right was clearly established. … The Court undertook an analysis of qualified immunity with the record before it. The law was clearly established, the second prong was met, but that was not dispositive of the defense.

Lane v. First National Bank of Boston

687 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 1988

The meaning of “clearly established law” in the context of qualified immunity has been analyzed by the First Circuit in several cases, and in a recent decision the Court stated that, “in assessing a claim of qualified immunity … that the district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity.

Venable v. Keever

61 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 24, 1999

Defendants assert that they are each entitled to qualified immunity from suit because in filing the counterclaim Keever was performing a discretionary act, did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

Seekamp v. Michaud

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 27, 1997

immunity. … immunity claims.

Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.

994 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 19, 2021

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … The district court pointed to precedent from this court that it believed had clearly established before March of 2017 that, for Paschal and Wiggins to be entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case

Lombardo v. Saint Louis City

361 F. Supp. 3d 882 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Feb 1, 2019

established right and were entitled to qualified immunity. … Defendants have appealed the portion of the court's order denying them qualified immunity based on whether the law was clearly established law. The same is true for Hopper v.

Administrator Larry Crawford, individually and in his official capacity, Captain Carl Aldridge, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Paul Diamond, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Don Vance, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. David Rodes, individually and in his official capacity, C.O. Joshua Scarberry, individually and in his official capacity, and The West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. Michael A. McDonald

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2023

McDonald disagrees that Petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity. … established law for qualified immunity purposes because it does not prescribe any specific behavior by the supervisory defendants and does not clearly define any rights.

Ande v. Rock

256 Wis. 2d 365 · Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · May 16, 2002

Qualified immunity overview. ¶ 15. … Wisconsin or federal case law *388 clearly establishing such an interest. Therefore, we conclude that qualified immunity bars all their federal claims. 16 CONCLUSION ¶ 22.

Moody v. City of Newport News

193 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 16, 2016

Clearly Established Further, even if Hollandsworth used excessive force, she would still be entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established' constitutional right. … Clearly Established Law Alternatively, even if Gibson did use excessive force, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Carrero v. Farrelly

310 F. Supp. 3d 581 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 19, 2018

In other words, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established. … In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established or not for purposes of qualified immunity courts must consider whether "any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was

Bellamy v. Wells

626 F. Supp. 2d 595 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · May 15, 2009

Defendants maintain that they did not violate Bellamy’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, but even if they did they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not contravene any clearly established constitutional … immunity when there is a violation of clearly established federal law.

Ron Nord v. Walsh County

757 F.3d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 26, 2014

If, upon application of the test, Nord’s rights were not clearly established, Wild is, of course, entitled to a qualified immunity defense against Nord’s claims. … immunity because Wild’s actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. *745 III.

Amy's Enterprises v. Sorrell

174 Vt. 623 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Dec 18, 2002

“[I]f the official’s conduct does not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the official is protected by qualified immunity from tort liability.” Id. … In the absence of any clearly established rules governing this situation, it cannot be said that no reasonable officers would not have acted in the same manner. ¶ 10.

Newhard v. Borders

649 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 2, 2009

who allegedly searched through Newhard’s phone after the arrest is entitled to qualified immunity because Newhard’s constitutional right to be free from such a search under the Fourth Amendment was not “clearly established … The Unnamed Officer who allegedly searched through the cell phone did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right of New-hard’s under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Glover v. Gartman

899 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 27, 2012

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifted Immunity Analysis. … The Supreme Court has clarified that the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test is a very high burden for the plaintiff: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time

Kruger v. Grauer

173 Conn. App. 539 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 6, 2017

Indeed, it is well established that conditioning immunity on the exercise of good faith is consistent with qualified immunity, not absolute immu- nity. See, e.g., Villages, LLC v. Longhi, 166 Conn. … and qualified immunity as grounds for summary judgment.

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”