Case law

Williams v. County of Sullivan

157 F.R.D. 6 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 1994

the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus “until the threshold immunity question [of whether the law was clearly established at the time an action occurred] is resolved, discovery should not be allowed,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Francis v. Coughlin

849 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 20, 1988

Defendants’ memorandum of law devoted nine pages to the defense of qualified immunity, arguing that the rights which plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established in the years 1982-83. … In its only reference to qualified immunity, the court noted in a footnote that a prisoner’s right to have notice of and to comment on charges against him was clearly established prior to 1982, such that qualified immunity

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

798 F.3d 1210 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

The officers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, arguing it was not clearly established in 1984 that they were bound by Brady’s disclosure requirements. … Ditsch moved for summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified immunity on Carrillo’s Brady claim because it was not clearly established in 1991 that Brady 16 CARRILLO V. CTY.

David Wayne Givens v. Jimmy Jones, Terry Morris, Zak A. Ajans, M.D., Frederick Stephenson, Jr., Georgia Slater, and Denny Vasquez

900 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The standard we must apply in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is well established. … Ajans on the basis of qualified immunity.

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

297 Mich. App. 446 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2012

Therefore, when the immunity granted in MCL 333.26424(a) is read in context with MCL 333.26422(b) and (c), it is plain that the immunity was not intended to exempt qualified medical-marijuana users from federal prosecutions … The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.26424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

Deavers v. Vasquez

57 F. Supp. 3d 599 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 5, 2014

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects government officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Greene, 593 F.3d 348, 358 (4th Cir.2010). *607 “The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpreting clearly established law too generally for féar of allowing plaintiffs ‘to convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into

Russell v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 16, 2021

Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless it is shown that, at the time of the incident, [the officer] violated a clearly established constitutional … An officer may successfully invoke the defense of qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Dickerson v. Mcclellan

101 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1996

Dickerson were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established law regarding the knock and announce rule and its exceptions." … because they did not violate Dickerson's clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Ard v. Rushing

911 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 30, 2012

’s action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly

Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory District

167 Vt. 415 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 23, 1998

He misunderstands the role of the objective standard in qualified immunity analysis. … , on the basis of nothing more than the official’s pretextual assertions, that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct contravened no clearly established law.’”

Alberts v. Willis

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … For these reasons, qualified immunity is denied on this claim. IV.

Doe, SORB No. 474362 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

94 Mass. App. Ct. 52 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 19, 2018

from a damages claim because the constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated were not "clearly established." … This is because as employees of a State executive agency, Hayden and Myers are immune from suit under § 1983 unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Daniel Robbins v. City of Des Moines

984 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 5, 2021

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, Robbins must demonstrate (1) a deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Id. … The defendant officers violated Robbins’s clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, see id., and are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Sean Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III

749 F.3d 302 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 14, 2014

(explaining that to survive a qualified-immunity claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate the “violation . . . of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known” (internal … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding that when officers violated rights that were clearly established, officers were not entitled to public officers’ immunity from North

Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORD

284 Conn. 91 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 2, 2007

pursuant to section 10-16n [which allows the establishment of grant programs to assist local boards of education establishing extended day Head Start programs]”). … “[A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act ... .

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Webb v. Haas

665 A.2d 1005 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Oct 10, 1995

Haas contends that he is protected from the Webbs’ action by the doctrine of qualified immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 8 because he has not violated a clearly established right of the Webbs’. … Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, “ ‘government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Chanon Miller v. Juan Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2025

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … immunity “raised . . . on a motion to dismiss . . . will be granted if the com- plaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitu- tional right.” 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001

Carl v. Angelone

883 F. Supp. 1433 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 19, 1995

Angelone’s instant motion for summary judgment argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the bfoq exception to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l), is not clearly established. … Qualified immunity, a hybrid species of affirmative defense and immunity, places the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that the right allegedly violated was clearly established. 3.

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State Univ.

873 So. 2d 970 · Mississippi Supreme Court · May 13, 2004

The test for qualified immunity is two fold, with the threshold question being whether the plaintiff has suffered a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends on the "objective reasonableness of the action" assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time it was taken.'