Case law

Emmett v. Armstrong

973 F.3d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 2020

Because Emmett’s excessive force claim alleges a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment, Officer Armstrong is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. … “[W]hen a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation—i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—a finding of qualified immunity . . .

Athel B. Cooper, Cross-Appellee v. William E. Smith, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia

89 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1996

applicable law was clearly established.” … For Cooper to pierce the qualified immunity protecting Smith, he must show that Smith violated one of Cooper’s “clearly established” rights under federal law. Id.

Lytle v. Brewer

77 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 22, 1999

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … Brewer argues that if the plaintiffs’ rights were violated, they were not clearly established, and therefore, he should be entitled to qualified immunity.

WV Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority v. The Estate of COdy Lawrence Grove

West Virginia Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2020

that he engaged in any act or omission related to the suicide of the Estate’s decedent that established the violation of a clearly established right. … 17 This Court has established numerous steps that must be examined in order to find whether qualified immunity protections apply in a particular case.

Woolum v. City of Dallas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 5, 2019

And, through his answer, Digby asserted qualified immunity. See id., ¶¶ 2.5, 2.6, & 2.7. … See Wicks, 41 F.3d at 994; Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (“[T]his court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary

STOKES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 2023

Qualified immunity shields 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 would have … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability unless the alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Jackson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2024

“Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v. … Officer Lombardini asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Def.’s Mot. at 14–15. Jackson contends that the officer violated clearly established law and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Daniel Mook v. G. Hall

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 4, 2026

The district court assumed that qualified immunity is a defense to an FMLA interference claim but denied Hall’s motion because it concluded that federal regulations clearly established Mook’s right to an … In other words, the denial of qualified immunity turned on a pure issue of law: whether the FMLA regulations clearly established Mook’s right to a cure period in these circumstances.

Elder v. Holloway

984 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

Harlow shifted the inquiry in qualified immunity cases from the subjective good faith of the government officials to the objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law. … The Court is merely restating its holding by emphasizing that to defeat a qualified immunity claim there must be an identity between the sued-on right and the clearly established right.

Quinones v. Howard

948 F. Supp. 251 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 11, 1996

It is well-established that issues involving the defense of qualified immunity should ordinarily be decided “at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Anderson v. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity also protects a government official if it is objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.” Russell v.

B.F. & K.L.F. v. Division of Youth & Family Services

296 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1997

The DYFS employees and the deputy attorneys general contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they did not violate a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense would ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 . [ Id at 180-81, 536 A.2d 229 .]

Deskovic v. City of Peekskill

894 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2012

Doctrine of 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 … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation, “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Thibodeaux v. City of Port Arthur

783 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 24, 1992

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, Harlow v. … The court is to determine immunity from suit based on the pleadings applying an “objective legal reasonableness” test, assessing the action in the light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it occurred

Jones v. City of Dothan, Alabama

121 F.3d 1456 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil litigation and liability where "their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights … With regard to the excessive force claim, the magistrate judge concluded that Estress and Wright were not entitled to qualified immunity since "on February 11, 1994, the law was clearly established that use of excessive

Dixon v. City of Somersworth, et al.

2015 DNH 190 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 5, 2015

Moreover, it is well established that qualified immunity, when properly invoked, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Penn v. … to qualified immunity.

Parada v. Anoka Cnty.

332 F. Supp. 3d 1229 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity "Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established under the Fourth Amendment," arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Britt v. Anderson

21 F. Supp. 3d 966 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 28, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional *970 rights of which a reasonable person would … Count I *974 is dismissed because Anderson did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Landstrom v. Illinois Department Of Children And Family Services

892 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

Id. at 908 . 26 Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, Darryl H. does not supply the particularized, clearly established right required for individual defendants to lose their qualified immunity. … immunity because the conduct alleged does not violate any clearly established first amendment rights.

Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory … “The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or

Whiting v. Kirk

768 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 21, 1991

The prevailing standard for qualified immunity is that “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The first step, then, in deciding the qualified immunity issue is to establish the right that was violated.