Case law

Montelongo v. City of Modesto

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2021

Qualified Immunity 22 Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability where a reasonable officer would 23 not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. … established law.”). 24 Officer Wallace is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity 25 because, as established previously, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Wallace 26

Dennis v. City of Phila.

379 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

Borough of Nesquehoning , 905 F.3d 711 , 719 (3d Cir. 2018) (explaining that the qualified immunity inquiry was whether the right at issue in that case was clearly established at the time the alleged conduct occurred). … They argue that because it was not clearly established in 1992 that police officers had any Brady obligations, the Defendant detectives are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price

876 F.3d 573 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

clearly established law. … It contains no argument on the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. It contains no citation to cases actually applying the "clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

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.

Ramirez v. Escajeda

44 F.4th 287 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 10, 2022

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … Escajeda next argues that, fact disputes aside, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. We agree.

Lumry v. State

Court of Appeals of Kansas · Oct 5, 2018

In claiming qualified immunity, Blecha first contends that the law was not clearly established that he could be personally liable for the FLSA claims; in other words, Blecha asserts that it was not clearly established in … N.Y. 2014) (defendant not entitled to qualified immunity since rules governing its conduct were clearly established, even if the rules about personal liability were not clearly established).

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

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.

Weise v. Casper

593 F.3d 1163 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

Because the constitutional right asserted by the Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity. … But in qualified immunity cases, except in the most obvious cases, broad, general propositions of law are insufficient to suggest clearly established law. See Brousseau v.

Harmon v. Dall. Cnty.

294 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts...to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v.

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Tesla Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 7, 2025

The Impact of Asserting Qualified Immunity on Discovery When dismissal is sought on the grounds of qualified immunity, however, a stay of discovery is virtually routine because a defendant pleading qualified … immunity operates to stay discovery only as to the defendants asserting qualified immunity, not to co-defendants or on other claims not subject to qualified immunity.

(PC) Trehearne v. Huggett

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned

Edward Monk v. Alvernon Rogers

2021 Ark. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Arkansas · Apr 7, 2021

from damages under section 1983 7 unless they transgress “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Accordingly, Rogers is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts alleged, construed in a light most favorable to Monk, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly

Hassell v. Fischer

96 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “protects public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability in a civil suit for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, therefore, turns on whether and when the rights that Hassell invokes were “clearly established.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 .

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.”

Cheri Marie Hanson v. Daniel Best

915 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 8, 2019

We have jurisdiction to the extent that we may resolve “abstract questions of law related to the qualified- immunity determination—typically, whether the allegedly infringed federal right was clearly established.” … Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

Phillip Turner v. Driver

848 F.3d 678 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2017

The court reasoned that Turner failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because he failed to show that their actions violated any of his clearly established statutory … violates that right.” 17 Thus, the right must already be clearly established “at the time of the challenged conduct.” 18 When considering whether a defendant is entitled to *686 qualified immunity, the court “must ask whether

El Dia, Inc. v. Rossello

20 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right of which a … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity protection from the claims in Count I, we must determine whether the right claimed is a clearly-established one.

Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp.

193 F.3d 130 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 23, 1999

The court noted that at the time of Dangler’s termination, “it was not clearly established in this Circuit that the policymaker exception did not immunize employers from liability in Pickering type situations,” 1998 WL 599711 … did not- violate a clearly established constitutional right.