Case 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.

Thomas Wilkinson, Benjamin Wilkinson, by Next Friend Thomas Wilkinson and Jonathan Wiegand v. Caroline S. Russell, James Adams and Gerald Jeffords

182 F.3d 89 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 17, 1999

Under the Vermont qualified immunity standard, then, Russell is entitled to qualified immunity in her communications with Shanley unless Russell reasonably should have known that those communications violated clearly established … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, “ ‘[a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it

Amaechi v. West

87 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 28, 2000

Amaechi — no matter how rapidly performed — would violate her clearly established rights. It follows that Officer West is not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. … infringed was "clearly established.”

Flores v. City of Palacios

270 F. Supp. 2d 865 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 30, 2003

The Court first determines whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. If not, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Flores has alleged violations of clearly established law, the Court moves to the next step in the qualified immunity analysis: judging the reasonableness of the alleged behavior. See Hayter, 154 F.3d at 274 .

Putthoff v. Ancrum

934 S.W.2d 164 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1996

In upholding the district court’s granting of the medical examiners’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, the court reasoned: Qualified immunity is available to government officials performing discretionary … Furthermore, the elements of official immunity and qualified immunity appear for all practical purposes to be the same.

Estate of Hammers v. Douglas Cnty.

303 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 28, 2018

Defendants argue Undersheriff Massey is entitled to qualified immunity, because the law was not clearly established that any of his actions violated the constitution. … While it is indeed clearly established that correctional facilities must provide adequate medical care to its inmates, it is not "clearly established"-for purposes of qualified immunity-that Undersheriff Massey's policies

Farrington v. Poole

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Second, the doctrine of qualified immunity required the district court to apply only clearly established law to the defendants’ conduct.

Scott Lee Rudlaff v. Brandon Gillispie

791 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2015

Remember that qualified immunity (as we’ve been reminded again and again) is an “exacting standard” that gives officers lots of leeway, requiring their conduct to violate clearly established law to defeat the defense. … Because the officers acted constitutionally — and because even if they didn’t, by all accounts they didn’t clearly act unconstitutionally — they are protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Hansen v. Town of Smithtown

342 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 24, 2018

City of New York , 45 F.3d 653 , 663 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that under qualified immunity, "a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official … The Supreme Court has explained that "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established

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.

Williams v. Schismenos

258 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Analysis The defendant officers maintain that qualified immunity protects them from liability for all federal claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Baptiste v. MacDonald, et al.

2017 DNH 140 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 17, 2017

Baptiste’s Objection Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no case that established … More importantly, in the context of qualified immunity from liability for an alleged constitutional violation, corrections officers are protected unless they violated an inmate’s clearly established 2 Baptiste mistakenly

Norman Knight v. Mark J. Mills, Etc.

836 F.2d 659 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 29, 1987

Before the district court, Mills argued that he was immune from damages due to qualified immunity. … it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Outlaw v. City of Meriden

43 Conn. App. 387 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 1, 1996

“The Supreme Court has expressly encouraged the use of summary judgment when qualified immunity is raised as a defense. … “As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did

Michaels v. State of NJ

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

rights were not clearly established at the time of the investigation such that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have known that they were violating her rights. … The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Suboh v. District Attorney's Office

298 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2002

The district court then concluded that Murphy was not protected by qualified immunity because Suboh's claim "lies at the core" of a clearly established right to familial integrity, id. at 140, and that, as the case was … not clearly established at the time.

George v. Morris

736 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 30, 2013

Concluding that the deputies had not argued for its application, the court did not address the second prong of qualified immunity — the clearly established inquiry. … Our decision on the clearly established issue does not prevent the deputies from appropriately raising the second prong of qualified immunity at 1 a subsequent stage in the litigation, such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment

Mafuz Blanco v. Tirado Delgado

641 F. Supp. 1287 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 1986

As applied, this objective qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right “clearly established” at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government … Defendant concedes that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s removal.

Moore v. Williamsburg Regional Hospital

560 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 12, 2009

Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 514 (1994) ("The cen- tral purpose of affording public officials qualified immunity from suit is to protect them ‘from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of … These claims fail because, even if plain- tiff established the other elements of the torts, plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to establish that defendants’ actions were without justification or were for an improper