Case law

Richard

District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 31, 2025

immunity. … Hollins, 297 F.3d 108, 113 n.1 (2d Cir. 2002) (Once a court “decide[s] that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity.”).

Ratliff v. Dekalb County

62 F.3d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 1995

the applicable law was clearly established. … The right to be free from retaliation is clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation

Bakutis v. Dean

129 F.4th 299 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 25, 2025

But ultimately, qualified immunity was preserved because it was not clearly established whether the use of force was reasonable in response to a call claiming a child could be physically ill. … A panel of this court found that the officers violated the Constitution but granted qualified immunity because the violation was not clearly established. Linicomn, 902 F.3d at 537, 539–40.

Notariano v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board

266 F. Supp. 3d 919 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 17, 2017

allegations are sufficient, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of any clearly established constitutional right. … “[I]f the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the defense of qualified immunity will not sustain a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” 26 “[A] plaintiff

Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner, Arlene Martin v. Dana Marriner

904 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

Nonetheless, it held that the FmHA officials were entitled to qualified immunity. 825 F.2d at 1553-54 . … Culbreath, 799 F.2d at 1250 (right to notice of an alternative proceeding to an FmHA liquidation not clearly established).

Alamo Workforce Development, Inc. v. Vann

21 S.W.3d 428 · Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) · May 2, 2000

Clearly this statutorily-defined structure establishes that work *433 force boards act as arms of the State and carry out the policies established by the Texas Workforce Commission. … This evidence is consistent with statutory provisions which establish service delivery areas for qualifying localities. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1511 (West 1999).

Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff

318 P.3d 458 · Supreme Court of Colorado · Jan 13, 2014

by the legislature, and both clearly indicate that the good faith of any person who qualifies for immunity "shall be presumed." … To hold otherwise would impermissibly defile the legislature's attempt to immunize qualifying law enforcement officers from liability.

Mark Abbott v. Laurie J. Latshaw, Albert Diehl, Dennis George, Robert Stafford and Donald Sarsfield

164 F.3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Our qualified immunity inquiry thus proceeds in two steps. See Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 828 (3d Cir.1997). First, we must determine whether the defendants violated “clearly established” rights.

Cox v. Village of Pleasantville

271 F. Supp. 3d 591 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2017

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation “if either (a) the defendant’s, action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the … As there is no clearly-established law holding that a stop under these or similar circumstances is impermissible, the Court agrees that, Hess is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his Fourth Amendment seizure

Stevens v. Sanpete County

640 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. Utah · Jan 9, 1986

Reading Harlow literally, it has said that the proper inquiry for determining qualified immunity is simply whether the constitution’s probable cause requirement was clearly established. … Since the probable cause requirement is clearly established, one who makes an arrest without probable cause can never have qualified immunity.

Wilkinson v. Balsam

885 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, D. Vermont · Apr 17, 1995

Thus, as under federal qualified immunity, [g]ood faith exists where an official’s acts did not violate clearly established rights of which the official reasonably should have known. … For purposes of state law qualified immunity, however, the “clearly established rights” need not be federal constitutional or statutory rights, as required in the application of the federal qualified immunity defense; to

Hansen v. Meese

675 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 16, 1987

Further, the court held that qualified immunity was inapplicable because the right at issue was clearly established. Id. at 3037-38 . … The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the “clearly established law” test should not be applied at a level of generality that would undermine the balance struck by the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. at 3038-39 .

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa

33 F.4th 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 3, 2022

The officers invoked qualified immunity, arguing they did not violate Mr. Wilkins’s Fourth Amendment rights and that his rights were not clearly established. … Wilkins’s clearly established right to be free from the additional use of force after he was effectively subdued. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Dull v. West Manchester Township Police Department

604 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2009

Haines, and Bixler are entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine whether a police officer enjoys qualified immunity, the court must ascertain whether the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *752 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Brown v. Oregon Department of Corrections

751 F.3d 983 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 29, 2014

Government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … We begin with the second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis: whether the right was clearly established  BROWN V. OREGON DEP’T OF CORR. 13 at the time of the alleged violation.

Mitchell v. Miller

56 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, D. Maine · Sep 26, 2014

prong (whether the right was clearly established). … established law for purposes of qualified immunity.

Chambers v. North Rockland Central School District

815 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 2011

by qualified immunity.” … “[E]ven where the law is ‘clearly established’ and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is ‘clearly defined,’ the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him at

WVDHHR v. Virginia Prince

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2019

In the proceedings below and on appeal, the Guardians assert that the DHHR Petitioners are precluded from relying on qualified immunity protections because the DHHR Petitioners violated a clearly established right. … established constitutional or statutory right, and no basis for piercing the DHHR Petitioners’ qualified immunity exists.

Delbridge v. Schaeffer

238 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1989

It held, therefore, that a public official is immune from liability unless he or she violates a clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. at 817-818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2737-38 . … As articulated by the Court, the principles of qualified immunity permit an FBI agent "to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless