Case law

Steven Kulkay v. Tom Roy

847 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2017

But “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v. … The officials are thus entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, because Kulkay fails to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, he is not entitled to discovery before dismissal.

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

Janowski v. City of North Wildwood

259 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 2017

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”).

George Cooper, Sr. v. James Sheehan

735 F.3d 153 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2013

Forsyth, seek to apply clearly established law to a given set of facts, we are properly vested with jurisdiction. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313. … As we have explained, “qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could

Krupien v. Ritcey

112 N.E.3d 302 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 26, 2018

"[T]he relevant inquiry on summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable official could have believed his actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed … established religious rights. 13 Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Peoples v. Leon

63 F.4th 132 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 20, 2023

Peoples also argues that Alexander 8 and Leon are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly established rights. … In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we must determine whether any constitutional right that the defendant violated “was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v.

Carey v. City of Fall River

708 F. Supp. 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1988

Thus, the court concludes that no constitutional counterpart of malicious prosecution or abuse of process was clearly established in 1983 and, therefore, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this … The Supreme Court has found that provisions in police regulations will not serve to clearly establish federal law for qualified immunity purposes. See Davis v.

Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Department

577 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

established for purposes of qualified immunity. … That Dwares does not discuss the "shocks the conscience” standard, however, does not establish qualified immunity.

Seekamp v. Michaud

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

immunity. … immunity claims.

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).

McCowan v. Morales

945 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 27, 2019

A court can consider the two qualified-immunity inquiries—whether the plaintiff has established a statutory or constitutional violation and whether that violation was clearly established—in any order. See Pearson v. … Because this claim adequately alleges a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation, the district court correctly denied Moralez qualified immunity from it. 1.

Thomas v. City of Phila.

290 F. Supp. 3d 371 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2018

Instead, the Court concludes that any procedural due process right is not (and was not at the relevant time) clearly established, meaning that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. A. … In any event, the real battle on the Brady count is qualified immunity: did police officers (as opposed to prosecutors) have clearly established Brady duties in 1993? In Gibson v.

Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra

965 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 14, 2020

Nor were the officers entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law under the “clearly established” prong of the inquiry: “[D]etaining [Hicks] under these circumstances – when the officers had a reasonable suspicion … Nor, again, could Phillips show that the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. Id.

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).

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).

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Grohs v. Yatauro

984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents

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.

Thomas v. McGinnis

239 Mich. App. 636 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2000

trial court granted the motion, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. … In an action brought under 42 USC 1983, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified or good-faith immunity “ ‘insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established