Case law

Golden v. Vickery

285 Ga. App. 216 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · May 2, 2007

The Goldens appeal the trial court’s award of summary judgment to Vickery on the ground of qualified immunity. We find no error and affirm. … The qualified immunity doctrine The doctrine of official immunity, also known as qualified immunity, offers public officers and employees limited protection from suit in their personal capacity.

Cottone v. Jenne

326 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

[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.” Id. … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine the applicability of qualified immunity.

Michael Hampton v. State of California

83 F.4th 754 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 3, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … To be clearly established, the relevant right must have been defined more narrowly.

Chapman v. Wyoming Department of Corrections

366 P.3d 499 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. at 815-16 . … [T23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to *511 show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

DeNucci v. Henningsen

248 Or. App. 59 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 8, 2012

of ORS 162.257 was not clearly established, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. … Despite the lack of probable cause for the arrest, however, Henningsen is still entitled to qualified immunity if plaintiffs right not to be arrested for her conduct was not “clearly established” at the time.

Kayla Robinson v. Angela Hawkins

937 F.3d 1128 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 5, 2019

In considering a defense of qualified immunity, the law must not be examined at a high level of generality: “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” … Rulings declaring the violation of a “clearly established right” require careful attention, because “qualified immunity is important to ‘society as a whole,’ and because as ‘an immunity from suit,’ qualified immunity ‘is

Deputy v. City of Seymour

34 F. Supp. 3d 925 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 21, 2014

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court considers it most prudent to proceed to the second question regarding qualified immunity — whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation. … First, in the context of qualified immunity, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized “[i]mportantly, the right must be clearly established in a particularized sense, rather than in an abstract or general sense.”

McCartney v. May

50 S.W.3d 599 · Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Jun 7, 2001

overcome their entitlement to qualified immunity. … ’s qualified immunity on May’s substantive due process claims.

Henderson v. Baird

29 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 14, 1994

They are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The magistrate judge went on to deny qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim because the law was clearly established “that substantive due process required that at least some evidence was needed to support

Montague v. Cooley

735 So. 2d 511 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Apr 28, 1999

A determination of qualified immunity involves a two part analysis. See Vermette v. … Cooley’s clearly established rights, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Officer Montague’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Reversed and remanded. FULMER, A.C.J., Concurs in result only.

Scallion v. Parish of Red River

251 F. App'x 853 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

Scallion fails to identify a clearly-established constitutional right violated by Myers. See id. … (first step in qualified-immunity analysis is identifying a clearly-established constitutional right that has been violated); Malley v.

Rippy v. Hattaway

270 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 2, 2001

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in the face of a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff bears an additional burden of pleading facts that, if taken as true, establish not only the violation of his rights, but also … While the promulgation and enforcement of procedures is a conceivable basis for a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff overcomes a qualified immunity defense only by identifying a particularized, clearly established right that

Alexys Sherry Parker v. Officer Adam Chard

777 F.3d 977 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from liability for conduct that “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

CITADEL WELLWOOD URBAN RENEWAL LLC v. BOROUGH OF MERCHANTVILLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Ahmad v. Department of Correction

446 Mass. 479 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Apr 7, 2006

In January, 2003, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The motion was denied without prejudice to permit sufficient discovery regarding the applicability of qualified immunity. … Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity. Conclusion.

Penilla v. City of Huntington Park

115 F.3d 707 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Because the officers have moved for qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we decide only whether defendants’ alleged conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Todd v. … The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established constitutional right to emergency medical care for persons not in custody and because there is no clearly established

McMillian v. Johnson

88 F.3d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. … Clearly Established Law Prohibited Police' Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law.

Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson

928 F.3d 507 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 28, 2019

Qualified immunity 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 … In sum, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Watson's constitutional rights and because those rights were clearly established when the incident occurred.

Hudson v. Maloney

326 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2004

Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officers immune unless their actions were “clearly proscribed” by established law).

Steven Bangs v. Walter William Smith

84 F.4th 87 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 12, 2023

Geraci, Judge) dismissing his complaint on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bangs’s rights in this context were not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, “[w]hether the law was sufficiently clearly established is . . . an issue of law that we consider de novo.” Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018).