Case law

Martel v. TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR

562 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Determination Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Brown v. City of Oneonta, NY

858 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 18, 1994

Wilson and Hunt claim that the court applied the qualified immunity test improperly and assert that they cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it was clearly established that an exception to FERPA did not apply … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle

859 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 7, 2017

Determining whether qualified immunity applies therefore presents a two-pronged inquiry: “whether the facts ... make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at … Rather, the “clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” so as to avoid transforming qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability.” Id.

Alexander v. Margolis

921 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 1, 1995

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court held that a defense of qualified immunity depends upon the reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established … In his response to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, he has not alleged how the defendants’ actions alleged in his complaint have violated clearly established law.

O'MALLEY v. City of Flint

652 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 26, 2011

Generally, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is proper if the officer was not on notice that his conduct was clearly unlawful. Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 876 (6th Cir.2002). … established”).

Derrick Williams v. Michael O'leary, Clyde E. Nash, Leroy Banks

55 F.3d 320 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 25, 1995

Williams challenges both the district court’s implicit finding that Brewer and Kurian were public officials entitled to raise the qualified immunity defense and its explicit conclusion that it was not clearly established … The instant case clearly falls within the class of cases in which qualified immunity may be raised by a private defendant.

City of Phoenix v. Superior Court

180 Ariz. 472 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Aug 4, 1994

The agents asserted qualified immunity as a defense. … the defendant’s version of the facts, the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established law.

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Gonzalez v. Reno, Meissner, Holder, Mills, INS Agent

325 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2003

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … It is therefore appropriate for a district court to grant the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage if the complaint “fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Fisher v. Dallas County

299 F.R.D. 527 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 18, 2014

“Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable.” Wallace v. … See Morin, 77 F.3d at 120 (“Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the officials violated clearly established law.”); Schultea, 47 F.3d at

Laubinger v. Department of Revenue

41 Mass. App. Ct. 598 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Nov 14, 1996

Whether an asserted right was clearly established at a particular time so that a public official who allegedly violated the right has no qualified immunity “presents a question of law” which “must be resolved de novo on appeal … Accordingly, we hold Fay is entitled to qualified immunity.

Anthony Gant v. Daniel Hartman

924 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 14, 2019

Benner, 913 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of qualified immunity). … Officer Hartman claims that he is entitled to qualified im- munity because his actions did not violate Gant’s constitu- tional rights and, even if they did, those rights were not clearly established on or before August 23,

James Boyd v. Mickey Owen and Leslie Foott

481 F.3d 520 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2007

That does not end the inquiry, however, because qualified immunity nevertheless protects the defendants unless the constitutional right that was violated was clearly established. … He has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was clearly established, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig

204 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 17, 2000

work conditions and responsibilities was "clearly established." … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) ("If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail . . . .").

Gardetto v. Mason

854 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Jun 7, 1994

immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established rights. … Finally, the Court also finds that this corpus of law was certainly clearly established at the time of the events in question such that the motion for qualified immunity on this claim must also be denied. iii.

Edmiston v. Borrego

75 F.4th 551 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established [statutory or] constitutional right.” Converse v. … Regarding the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, for a right to be “clearly established” it must be “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates

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.”

England v. Hendricks

880 F.2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 21, 1989

On the facts before us, then, Hendricks and Groll would be entitled to qualified immunity if it was not clearly established under Utah law at the time of their actions that a store owner could not be charged under the aiding … Since the decision to charge did not violate clearly established law at the time of the officers’ actions, they are immune from suit.

Jeremiah Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners

2025 ME 22 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Mar 4, 2025

Even construed strictly because it is in derogation of the common law, the immunity statute is clearly broad in scope. See Jamison v. … As to Hogan’s assertion that the immunity provision violates the child’s constitutional right of bodily integrity, “[i]n the context of COVID-19, courts across the country have concluded that Jacobson established that there

Heidemann v. Rother

84 F.3d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 23, 1996

For reversal, all of the defendants, including Joy, argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any clearly established constitutional or federal … In Behrens , the defendant, an official with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, had moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his actions had not violated any clearly established right.