Case law

Vernon Linicomn v. City of Dallas

902 F.3d 529 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can plead specific allegations demonstrating (1) the violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the alleged … immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers’ entry.

Davila v. City of New York

139 A.D.3d 890 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2016

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ actions would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … “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” (Mullenix

Lombardi Rest Home, Inc. v. Richter

63 Conn. App. 646 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jun 5, 2001

II In addition, the defendants raise the question of whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. … . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

The Estate of Jeremy Marr v. City of Glasgow

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 31, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry: (1) whether a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established, though the steps need not be taken in that order. … Clearly Established The second prong of qualified immunity analysis examines whether the right as clearly established. See Getz, 833 F.3d at 652 (citing Pearson v.

Williams v. City of Yazoo

41 F.4th 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

III Qualified immunity protects officials from civil liability for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Ct. 9, 11 (2021), but we have seen cases like this before. 6 The district court denied the defendants qualified immunity but did not address whether the law was clearly established.

Toevs v. Reid

685 F.3d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Our conclusion that defendants are entitled to judgment on the “clearly established” portion of the qualified-immunity test obviates any need to remand this case. … Because the law was not clearly established, defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

Ronald Jordan, Robert MacKay and the Mbta Police Patrolman's Union v. Joseph C. Carter

428 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 4, 2005

As noted above, the district court rejected appellant’s qualified immunity defense, which shields government actors from damages based on their conduct unless a reasonable official would have known, in light of clearly established … Clearly Established Right The second stage of the qualified immunity inquiry requires us to determine whether the right we have identified was “ ‘reasonably well settled at the time of the challenged conduct,’ ” Mihos, 358

Krein v. Norris

309 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 16, 2002

not specifically and conclusively ruled on the issue of qualified immunity. … holding that "plaintiff has asserted the violation of a constitutional right [and] the right is clearly established."

Morton H. Halperin v. Henry A. Kissinger

807 F.2d 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

The District Court granted summary judgment to . defendants on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the wiretap did not violate clearly established law since it had a rational nexus to national security. … We must determine whether the claims based on these requirements are subject to the qualified immunity defense. As to the warrant requirement, the answer is plain, since it was not yet clearly established.

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"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 the challenged conduct." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon, Inc.

248 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 2016

Proposition D bans medical marijuana businesses, but grants certain qualifying businesses a limited immunity from enforcement of the ordinance. … As set forth in the Declarations attached to these moving papers, Progressive has resolved the LiveScan issue and now fully qualifies for limited immunity.

D'AGUANNO v. Gallagher

827 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 9, 1993

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Count III because they did not violate clearly established law. 4. The Right to Equal Protection Under the Law.

Kutilek v. Gannon

132 F.R.D. 296 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 24, 1990

It is premised on the contention that the challenged conduct was undertaken in good faith or did not violate clearly established law or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. … functions will be shielded 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, is resolved, discovery

County of Adams v. Hibbard

20 Brief Times Rptr. 952 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jun 17, 1996

The qualified immunity defense should fail if the law was clearly established because “a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his [or her] conduct.” … called for the destruction of Garrison’s residence because, in their view, avoiding clearly established procedures would be cheaper.

Meyers v. Majkic

189 F. App'x 142 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 2006

If a constitutional right may have been violated by the actions alleged, the defendant is only entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established. … A right is clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his/her conduct was unlawful in the specific context of the case.

Benjamin v. Schwartz

299 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 8, 2004

Koenigsmann, and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is available to a public official whose conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir.1993).

Garcia v. Dutchess County

43 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 21, 2014

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” See id. at 1866 . … to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Dorwart v. Caraway

290 Mont. 196 · Montana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1998

In other words, the plaintiffs have to prove a negative in order to establish that they had a right which the majority initially concedes is clearly established. ¶ 148 I also dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Brophy … The majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Brophy and Stillwater County is based on the same unsound conclusion on which its qualified immunity decision is based — i.e., that Dorwart had no clearly established right

Shehee v. Luttrell

199 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 1999

immunity, finding that the law regarding Shehee’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims was clearly established. … of clearly established law.”

Murcia v. County of Orange

226 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 2002

the supervisor liable were clearly established at the time of the violation. … I conclude that Bigger is entitled to qualified immunity in this situation. In essence, plaintiff argues that Bigger cannot acquire qualified immunity by accident.