Case law

Spears v. Garcia

263 Conn. 22 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Apr 1, 2003

When a municipal employee is sued, he or she may assert qualified immunity as a common-law defense. … While a benefit accrues to the municipality when the employee successfully establishes qualified immunity, by permitting the municipality to avoid liability for indemnification, the defense is intended to benefit the employee

Sample v. Bailey

337 F. Supp. 2d 1012 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 24, 2004

The qualified immunity doctrine provides “that governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … A “Clearly Established” Right? To overcome the bar of quali-fied immunity, a plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred.

Zimmerman v. Corbett

195 F. Supp. 3d 695 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated- a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v. … Whether the right at issue is clearly established Having determined that Plaintiff alleged a constitutional violation, the Court turns the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Gall v. City of Vidor, Tex.

903 F. Supp. 1062 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Oct 2, 1995

Qualified immunity allows public officials performing discretionary functions to be generally shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Luce’s actions, this court finds that a clearly established exception to the general rule against warrantless searches and seizures exists and Mr. Luce is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Killian v. Grizzle

District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 15, 2025

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 of which a reasonable … Grizzle] violated th[is] clearly established right[].” Id. Sgt.

Tschida v. Motl

250 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, D. Montana · Apr 18, 2017

The Court may begin the qualified immunity analysis by considering first “whether1 theré is a-violation of-clearly established law . without determining whether a constitutional violation occurred.” … The Court also affirmed the magistrate judge’s ruling that the right was clearly established, and, therefore, qualified immunity was not available to the officials. Id.

Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hospital Authority

221 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 22, 2004

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that its decision to overrule the Individual Hospital Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity was clearly erroneous or that it resulted in manifest injustice to any … Conclusion With the exception of the Court’s ruling on whether the Hospital Defendants’ qualified immunity objections were substantially justified, the Hospital Defendants fail to show how the Court’s rulings were clearly

Walker v. Davis

649 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 22, 2011

The district court held that Davis’s actions, so viewed, violated Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights, thereby precluding qualified immunity for Davis. We affirm. … But the facts, as we must view them, make out a violation of Germany’s clearly established constitutional rights. The district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed.

Cook v. Cobb County, Georgia

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 29, 2022

Indeed, qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Richard Crouse v. Town of Moncks Corner

848 F.3d 576 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 15, 2017

Because the first two prongs of the test are questions of law, an employer is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong cannot be resolved under clearly established law. … To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education

780 F. Supp. 2d 594 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 3, 2011

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 of which … cannot violate clearly established constitutional rights as conduct that would “shock the conscience” (doc. 64).

Amity Dimock v. City of Brooklyn Center

124 F.4th 544 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 26, 2024

The right was not “clearly established.” Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 5. The district court correctly granted qualified immunity on the officers’ warrantless entry. IV. … The right was not “clearly established.” Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 5. The district court correctly granted qualified immunity on the officers’ use of deadly force.

Foley v. University of Houston System

355 F.3d 333 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

Blake, 913 F.2d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1990). 6 entitled to qualified immunity when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … However, the test for qualified immunity is whether the Appellees have asserted the deprivation of a statutory right under clearly established law.

Harris v. Hayter

970 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 18, 1997

When a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the court should address it at the earliest possible stage because qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the focus is upon the reasonable person and whether he would have known that he was violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Mark Robbins v. Randy Becker, Sr.

715 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 2013

qualified immunity. … established”); Katosang v.

Barbara C. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, Joel White, James Kenny

348 F.3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 17, 2003

The Supreme Court’s prescribed inquiry Defendants begin and end their qualified immunity argument with the proposition that the allegedly infringed constitutional right is not “clearly established.” … Ehrlich has not proffered evidence demonstrating the violation of a “clearly-established right[ ] of which an ob *62 jectively reasonable official would have known,” the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and

Rodriguez v. Nazario

719 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 31, 1989

relief; 4 that defendants have failed to establish that they perform discretionary functions which is a requisite for qualified immunity; and that defendants’ actions were violative of clearly established law and therefore … and has not been clearly established on this matter.

Rush v. Perryman

579 F.3d 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 3, 2009

The court denied the Board qualified immunity with respect to Rush’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding that Rush’s rights under those provisions were clearly established. … The court concluded that the Board was not entitled to qualified immunity because Rush’s right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

Alvarez Sepulveda v. Colon Matos

247 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 24, 2003

“[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent … “[S]tate officials exercising discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not transgress clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights of which a reasonably prudent

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