Case law

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.

Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel

787 F. Supp. 471 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 1992

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . 12 In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the contours of the right at the time

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

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).

Harris v. Roderick

126 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 1997

In order to determine whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: “1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? … The Rules directly infringed on the clearly established constitutional rights of those at whom they were aimed, including Harris. There is no qualified immunity for such conduct, either.

L.G. v. Keisha Edwards

990 F.3d 1145 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity generally protects public officials from § 1983 lawsuits where the officials' conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … We often describe the resolution of a qualified immunity issue as involving two questions—whether the official's conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and whether that right was clearly established.

Fauser v. Memphis Housing Authority

780 F. Supp. 1168 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 17, 1991

Once the issue of qualified immunity is raised, plaintiff must identify the clearly established law and present facts which, if true, demonstrate that the defendants’ conduct violated clearly established law. … on the basis of defendant’s qualified immunity is whether the defendant “violated” those clearly established rights.

Kenneth Hill v. Richard Trinci, Dominto Carrillo, Jackie Dent, Warner Lumpkins, Lee Williams, and Kandice Woodard

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · Jul 24, 2012

Government officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from a suit for damages under section 1983 so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory … The plaintiff must show: (1) the official’s conduct violated a federally guaranteed right; (2) the right was clearly established; and (3) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established

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."

Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

956 F. Supp. 2d 1059 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 8, 2013

Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability “unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … second part of the qualified immunity analysis.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Byers

521 S.W.3d 459 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Jun 8, 2017

To stave off summary judgment on qualified immunity, a civil-rights plaintiff must assert a constitutional violation, demonstrate that the constitutional right is clearly established, and raise a genuine issue of fact … as to whether the official would have known that the conduct violated that clearly established right.

Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

848 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 9, 2017

If the right was not clearly established, our inquiry ends and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Was the Right Clearly Established?

William LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich.

30 F.4th 572 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 8, 2022

Analysis In reviewing an order denying qualified immunity, the Court considers (1) whether an “official’s conduct . . . violate[d] a constitutional right,” and, if so, (2) whether “that right was . . . clearly established … Clearly Established “Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for civil damages if either the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right or if that right was not clearly established

Ermini v. Scott

249 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 6, 2017

Even if shooting plaintiff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff establishes that Deputy Hamer violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … The Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established in the specific context of this case. Therefore, even if plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right was violated, Deputy Hamer is entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Walter v. Morton

33 F.3d 1240 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 30, 1994

Jurisdiction 5 We have jurisdiction to hear Chief Morton's and Mayor Vickers' appeals as they are appealing a denial of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is immunity from liability but also immunity from suit. … The "plaintiff must do more than identify in the abstract a clearly established right and allege that the defendant has violated it."

Mascorro v. Billings

656 F.3d 1198 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 31, 2011

An appeal is proper if the defendant sets off to show that the law was not clearly established at the time of the challenged action, or that qualified immunity is proper even under the plaintiff's version … To defeat the officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the Mascorros must show (1) the officers violated their constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) the violated rights were clearly established at the time of the events

Gionis v. Headwest, Inc.

799 So. 2d 416 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 16, 2001

Gionis subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII, on the basis that he was immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Once it is established that the acts in question were discretionary governmental functions, the second element requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated the plaintiffs clearly established

Angel v. Cruse

2014 NV 25 · Nevada Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2014

established law. . . for qualified immunity purposes." … established law, and Cruse was not entitled to qualified immunity.