Case law

Marshall v. Russell

391 F. Supp. 3d 672 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 20, 2018

Russell alleged he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. ECF No. 55 at 32-34. Sgt. … Qualified immunity.

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

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.

Gant v. Maness

786 So. 2d 401 · Mississippi Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2001

This, according to longstanding Mississippi law, is clearly insufficient to establish a duty of care owing to him in particular: when the duty imposed upon an officer is one solely to the public, the failure to perform it … Now, in developing his argument for qualified immunity, Gant asserts that his duties regarding Thompson's incarceration were discretionary and that he is, thus, entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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.

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 .

Ruiz v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

984 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2013

However, as detailed below, that right is insufficient to sustain this action when juxtaposed against the qualified immunity “clearly established law” requirement. … immunity, based on a claim that the right to family integrity was not clearly established, will fail.

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.

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Apr 10, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

226 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 2017

Therefore, a plaintiff can only overcome the qualified immunity defense by showing “the officer’s conduct [to have] violated a constitutional right,” which right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … In sum, we find that Mixner is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Section 1983 claim because, at the time it occurred, Mixner’s conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right. y.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling

714 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 17, 2010

Qualified Immunity Standard “Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Whether a right is ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that ‘must be undertaken in light *1091 of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.’

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.

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 .