Case law

Paul Scinto, Sr. v. Warden Stansberry

841 F.3d 219 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 2016

to qualified immunity. … The Seventh Circuit, for example, has held that the subjective prong of the Farmer test and the objective, clearly established prong of the qualified immunity test “effectively collapse into one” when the plaintiff raises

Vacha v. City of North Ridgeville

136 Ohio St. 3d 199 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2013

The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter … The court of appeals simply held that North Ridgeville did not establish entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. Id. at ¶ 23.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic

142 S.W.3d 128 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Aug 26, 2004

The trial court also dismissed the claims against the individual employees on grounds that they were entitled to qualified official immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 409-10 (1982) (qualified immunity for presidential assistants).

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

Rivera Castelan v. Taylor

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

Our Review Qualified immunity generally shields government officials so long “as their conduct does not violate [a] clearly established [federal] right[].” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … right was clearly established.

Christopher G. Pitt, Sr. And Tela Hansom-Pitt v. District of Columbia

491 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir.2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established ... is a pure question of law....”); Williams v. Ala. … The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

Mathis v. Bess

767 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1991

To defeat qualified immunity, the rights that plaintiffs assert were violated must have been clearly established in a “particularized sense.” P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1990). … Under these circumstances, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects the stenographers’ discretion.

Stovall v. McAtee

35 F. Supp. 2d 1125 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 24, 1997

In denying defendant’s qualified immunity motion, the district court concluded that Thomas v. Pate had clearly established the right at issue. This reliance was misplaced. As noted above, Thomas v. … When a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the right he invokes was “clearly established” at the relevant time with sufficient specificity under the circumstances.

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.

Facey v. Dickhaut

892 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of clearly established law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires that the right have been clearly established at the time that it was allegedly violated. See Feliciano-Hernandez, 663 F.3d at 532 .

Shaylene Montoya v. City of Flandreau

669 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 23, 2012

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … We further conclude the constitutional right Officer Hooper allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the misconduct, as required by the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Smithson v. Aldrich

235 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 21, 2000

Qualified Immunity A motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is only precluded when the plaintiff has “(1) asserted] a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate^] that the alleged right is clearly … Stated another way, qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful “in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant

Adam Locke v. Mya Haessig

788 F.3d 662 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2015

The defense of qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their con- duct does not violate clearly established statutory or consti- tutional rights of which a reasonable … Clearly Established Law in 2007 and 2008 If we accept the facts asserted by Locke, Haessig’s actions violated clearly established law at time of the violation.

Kenneth Hunt v. Dale Acosta

109 F.4th 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2024

The district court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Officer Acosta and qualified immunity for Mayor Williams and Chief Wilson. … Qualified Immunity Interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity is limited to “the purely legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff are a violation of clearly established law.”

Carlson v. County of Hennepin

428 N.W.2d 453 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Aug 23, 1988

A subsequent motion to dismiss the individual defendants on the basis of qualified immunity was granted. … is no qualified immunity.

Handy v. Fisher

District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 28, 2020

Because plaintiffs have met their burden on the first qualified immunity prong, I now consider their allegations that the law in question was clearly established. B. … Plaintiffs have asserted the violation was clearly established but do not provide independent argument on the qualified immunity prongs, perhaps because defendants did not address it in their motion.

Shows v. Morgan

40 F. Supp. 2d 1345 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 17, 1999

Where the law that the defendants allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 ; Stewart v. … established, and (3) where the qualified immunity determination does end the whole case,” Lewis does not prohibit the. court from first considering a qualified-immunity defense).

Beverly Spencer v. Sheriff Jonathan Benison

5 F.4th 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

It found that Benison was not entitled to qualified immunity on Spencer’s individual capacity claims because he “failed to establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when he ordered Spencer … 18-14397 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Estate of Sorrells v. City of Dallas

192 F.R.D. 203 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 25, 2000

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

682 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 30, 2012

Patchman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), or in the alterna- tive, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any of the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … An official is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.