Case law

Tuchman v. State

89 Conn. App. 745 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 24, 2005

The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action on the basis of the doctrines of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity and statutory immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Bailey v. Pataki

722 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 2010

If either prong is missing, qualified immunity is warranted; however, the burden is on defendants to establish qualified immunity. … that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Hughes v. Kisela

862 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 28, 2016

“In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established *783 at the time of the … [genuine factual] issues is crucial to a proper determination of the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity,” and remanded the question whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct,

People v. Mazur

497 Mich. 302 · Michigan Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2015

Section 4 of the MMMA concerns immunity. A qualifying patient who receives a registry identification card is entitled to immunity, provided that certain conditions are met. MCL 333.26424(a). … The trial court’s contrary finding that “there is no evidence that she provided [marihuana paraphernalia] to a registered qualifying patient or registered caregiver” is clearly erroneous because elsewhere in its opinion the

Bledsoe v. Jefferson County

275 F. Supp. 3d 1240 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 4, 2017

Unless the official’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity applies. Id. … Morgan’s alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, qualified immunity shields him from suit. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

Solis v. Serrett

31 F.4th 975 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 21, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “The qualified immunity inquiry includes two parts.

Kauch v. Department for Children, Youth & Their Families

321 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

A three-part test is used to determine if an official is entitled to qualified immunity. First, a court considers whether "the plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." … Second, we determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id.

Marvin Mead v. Charles Palmer

794 F.3d 932 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 24, 2015

In determining whether the defendants should receive qualified immunity, this court evaluates *936 (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to [Mead], establish a violation of a constitutional … The district court denied qualified immunity to the nurse practitioners. Id.

Galloway v. County of Nassau

141 F.4th 417 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 26, 2025

While we have disapproved tactics used in the photo 29 identifications here, we need not decide whether they violated clearly 30 established law; Lipson’s qualified immunity defense fails in any 31 event because he … But that subjective intent—absent some future development in the case law—does not affect the qualified immunity analysis. The procedures here did not violate clearly established law for being unduly suggestive.

Fleming v. City of Bridgeport

92 Conn. App. 400 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Nov 29, 2005

Therefore, in reviewing . . . claims of qualified immunity we are bound by federal precedent, and may not expand or contract the contours of the immunity available to government officials.” … “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Smith v. Haley

401 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 1, 2005

(officials violated RLUIPA but entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a “clearly established” right); Williams v. Bitner, 359 F.Supp.2d 370 (M.D.Pa.2005) (Conner, J.) … In short, as long as their decision to deny Smith possession of the crystal was not contrary to clearly established law, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Harvey v. Nichols

260 Ga. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Feb 27, 2003

The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity. … Qualified immunity protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or corruption.

Hanes v. Zurick

578 F.3d 491 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 18, 2009

that right was clearly established. … ” the court indicated that the right was clearly established.

J.H. v. West Virginia Division of Rehabilitation Services

224 W. Va. 147 · West Virginia Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2009

Va.Code, 29-12A-1, et seq., 11 is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability for official acts if the involved conduct did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable official would have known. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

Haywood v. Alexander

121 So. 3d 972 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Feb 22, 2013

‘An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Jenkins’s ‘complaint allege[s] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’ Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Services, 880 So.2d at 402 .

Wilson v. Maricopa County

484 F. Supp. 2d 1015 · District Court, D. Arizona · Dec 19, 2006

This right is clearly established. … Denial of Qualified Immunity on Summary Judgment.

Dorwart v. Caraway

312 Mont. 1 · Montana Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2002

established. … There we held that the law on which Dorwart relied in asserting his federal claim was not clearly established at the time that it was violated.

Jonathan Capp v. County of San Diego

940 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 4, 2019

clearly established. … Clearly Established Having determined that Plaintiffs plead a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim, we now move to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right at issue was ‘clearly

Felicia Dean v. Stephen McKinney

976 F.3d 407 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Oct 2, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity—controversial, contested, and binding—is a familiar rule. 1 The doctrine shields the officer from suit unless his conduct violated “clearly established … But in doing so, the Court recognized that there was no clearly established law at the time of the crash in 2014 and granted qualified immunity. Id.

Wilkins v. City of Oakland

350 F.3d 949 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2003

This general evaluation of the constitutionality of the alleged conduct, however, is not sufficient; we must also determine whether the actions alleged violate a clearly established constitutional right, where ‘clearly established … Even applying the step-by-step qualified immunity analysis outlined in Saucier, there is no question whether the officers’ actions in this case violated clearly established law. They did.