Case law

Hill v. Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Office

283 F. Supp. 2d 955 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2003

Leonard, holding that a supervisor defendant is shielded by qualified immunity unless; (1) the law violated by the defendant’s subordinate is clearly established and (2) the supervisory liability doctrine under which the … If they were, then McNeill violated clearly established law.

Kvech v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

987 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 30, 2013

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Oliver v. Woods

209 F.3d 1179 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 17, 2000

Oliver’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined Mr. … Oliver’s clearly established rights. C. Officer Woods’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Mr. Oliver failed to show Officer Woods violated his clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Donovan v. City Of Milwaukee

17 F.3d 944 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1994

II. 5 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, "governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Pritchett v. Lanier

766 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, D. South Carolina · May 31, 1991

The defense of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The qualified immunity test necessitates three discrete determinations: the identification of the specific right allegedly violated, the determination of whether that right was so “clearly established” as to alert a reasonable

Wettersten v. Chillicothe City School District Board of Education

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 27, 2022

Kammer, 955 F.3d 520, 540–41 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding parents’ right to make decisions concerning the care and custody of their children without government interference was clearly established). … City of New York, 775 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming decision that state statute and regulation excluding children not immunized from school during disease outbreak was constitutional despite parental objection).

Pineda v. City of Houston

124 F. Supp. 2d 1037 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jul 29, 1999

The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity Public officials, sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 are shielded from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory … “Qualified immunity protects a police officer from liability if a reasonable competent law enforcement officer would not have known that his actions violated clearly established law.” Harper v.

Hall v. Ryan

957 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1992

The defendants’ summary judgment motion argues that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that the law at the time of the incident “did not clearly establish the right to have officers diagnose pre-trial … Judge Baker noted that qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ronald Mitchell v. Justin Schlabach

864 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 2017

Second, was the right, clearly established at the time of the violation?” Id. Government officials are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity unless the answer to both questions is yes. See id. *421 A. … at the time he acted. 3 We hold that they were not, The Supreme Court very recently reminded the lower courts that an officer’s actions are against “clearly established” law for purposes of qualified immunity only when “

Ungerer v. Moody

17 Brief Times Rptr. 160 · Colorado Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1993

More concretely, whether a police officer is protected from suit by qualified immunity turns on an objective standard of reasonableness, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violating clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Aho v. Anthony

782 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 28, 2011

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known … See Musso, 836 F.2d at 743-44 (stating that, in a qualified immunity inquiry, the appropriate question is whether it was “clearly established” that the defendant had an affirmative duty to prevent others from infringing on

Donald M. Johnson v. Bob Odom

910 F.2d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

An appeal may be taken from a finding against qualified immunity where the issue involved is the purely legal one of “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the … qualified immunities was proper.

Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal

708 F. Supp. 1477 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 16, 1989

litigation and, at the same time, they can be held liable for the violation of a clearly established constitutionally-protected right. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which the official knows or reasonably should be aware.”

Huerta v. Hillsborough County

720 So. 2d 276 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Oct 23, 1998

The parties agree that a government official, such as Bean, is entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit in the performance of discretionary functions when the official's conduct does not violate any clearly established … The trial court, in applying this principle of law, opined that Huerta's constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of his termination and ruled that Bean was entitled to qualified immunity.

Maraziti v. First Interstate Bank Of California

953 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

II 5 A federal official's assertion of qualified immunity based upon the plaintiff's failure to state a "violation of clearly established law" is a question of law. Mitchell v. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

Smith v. Deering

880 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 20, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity which requires the Court to determine whether Defendants violated clearly established Constitutional law. 1. … The test for qualified immunity is “whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” Anderson v.

Dwight L. McKee Allen L. Jones v. Henry Hart Wesley Rish Albert Masland James Sheehan Daniel P. Sattelle, Daniel P. Sattele

436 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 6, 2006

is entitled to qualified immunity. … right was clearly established at the time of Sattele’s alleged conduct.

Gabriel Coker v. Arkansas State Police

734 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 5, 2013

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability "unless his conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … the defendant violated a clearly established right."

ANTHONY LEO v. CAROL MICI, Commissioner of Correction, MICHAEL RODRIGUES, Superintendent of MCI-Concord, SHEILA CREATON-KELLY, Deputy Superintendent of Re-Entry of MCI- Concord, and DANNY ORTIZ, Director of the Secure Adjustment Unit at MCI-Concord

Massachusetts Superior Court · Feb 24, 2025

to interfere) with a clearly established state right through "threats, intimidation, or coercion." … See LaChance, 463 Mass. at 778 (holding defendants entitled to qualified immunity under MCRA).

Bernstein v. Roberts

405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .