Case law

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

Leibson v. Ohio Department of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

84 Ohio App. 3d 751 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials under the objective standard which tests whether their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Pauly v. White

874 F.3d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 2017

are entitled to qualified immunity. … But, as we explained above, Officer -White is entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of excessive force was not clearly established in the circumstances of this case.

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

Ernest Foster, Sr. v. Jeremy Hellawell

908 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 20, 2018

In deciding such legal claims, we apply the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity standard. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Liberal v. Estrada

632 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

right violated was not clearly established at the time of the violation. … Construing the facts in favor of Plaintiff, the use of force was not reasonable and violated clearly established constitutional law. Therefore, Officers Estrada and Keegan are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Ajay Gaalla v. Citizens Medical Center, Et

460 F. App'x 469 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 2012

established, it denied the Defendants qualified immunity on those claims.4 The district court also denied official immunity to Dr. … STANDARD OF REVIEW “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

Jacqueline Washington v. L. Newsom R. Phillips J. Thomas the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department

977 F.2d 991 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 21, 1992

When a claim to qualified immunity is raised within the context of a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must allege facts sufficient to indicate that the act in question violated clearly established law at the time … Thus, the plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles when facing a defendant on summary judgment who claims qualified immunity. First, the allegations must “state a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Cox v. Maine State Police

391 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 3, 2004

In that way, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil -7- liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In short, -10- to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity "the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been 'clearly established' in a more particularized,

Roe v. Fryer

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 25, 2024

that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. … the qualified immunity privilege, even in the absence of case law.

Kravitz v. Police Department of the Hudson

285 A.D.2d 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 2001

“A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “The defendant must establish that he [or she] had an objectively reasonable belief that his [or her] act violated no clearly established rights [citation omitted]” (Young v Selsky, 41 F3d 47, 54 , cert denied 514 US 1102

Washington v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established … Under the law of qualified immunity, a governmental officer may commit a constitutional violation but nevertheless be immune from suit if it was not “clearly established,” at the time that he acted, that he was

Grove School v. Guardianship & Advocacy Commission

642 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 1986

All defendants are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because they did not violate any “clearly established” constitutional rights. 2. … Qualified Immunity All defendants seek insulation from Section 1983 damage liability under the rule of qualified immunity enunciated in Harlow v.

Peoples v. Fischer

898 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2012

Qualified Immunity Agency officials performing discretionary functions are generally granted qualified immunity and are immune from suit provided that “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … claim. 44 To *625 succeed on their claim for qualified immunity, Bezio and Rock must show that from the “face of the complaint they did not violate a clearly established right of which they should have known.” 45 Defendants

Distiso v. Town of Wolcott

352 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 5, 2009

The district court then denied the Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, asserting conclusorily that Nicholas’s right to be free from racial discrimination was clearly established, and that a reasonable school official … Therefore, if the facts alleged by the Plaintiff here do not make out violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right, then qualified immunity is available. Id. at 816 ; see also Okin v.

Brandon Raub v. Michael Campbell

785 F.3d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 29, 2015

(2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … [Campbell’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Tosun Fitil v. Justyn Riley

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 31, 2026

What we can review is the denial of qualified immunity on Fitil’s Fourth Amendment claim. … Even though the plaintiff “was shot in the knee with a rubber bullet” from “less than 10 feet away,” we granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established “as of April 2021 that officers effect a seizure when

Redmond v. Crowther

882 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … Clearly Established Even if we assume a constitutional violation occurred, moreover, the officers would still be entitled to qualified immunity because no case clearly establishes this right.

Dennis Lee Campbell v. Paul Burt, and John Doe (3), Police Officers

141 F.3d 927 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 6, 1998

The primary issue before us is whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, the seven-day delay before filing the petition and obtaining post-deprivation judicial review violated Campbell’s clearly established procedural … However, “[a]n official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not ‘clearly established.’ ” Campbell, 949 F.Supp. at 1468 (quoting Anderson v.

Van Lee Brewer v. Jason Simental

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) · Oct 15, 2010

Those governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. … Therefore, the defendants were entitled to claim qualified immunity. See Kipps, 197 F.3d at 768.