Case law

Gregory W. Zullo v. State of Vermont

205 A.3d 466 · Supreme Court of Vermont · Jan 4, 2019

in that it violated clearly established constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have been aware) … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (noting that qualified immunity’s clearly-established-right test protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”).

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

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.

Napier v. Town of Windham

187 F.3d 177 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 6, 1999

There are two prongs to the qualified immunity analysis. The first prong is whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Swain v. … Finding that no such duty was clearly established at the time of the incident, we held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 28.

Williams v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky

24 F.3d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 26, 1994

qualified immunity issues. … III. 69 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Williams' First Amendment claim. It was clearly established that the speech Williams cites as the reason for her demotion addressed matters of public concern.

Alton v. Hopgood

994 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 18, 1998

Although the Fifth Circuit has clearly established a two-step inquiry for qualified immunity, confusion abounds in the case law and in the briefs submitted to this Court. … Although holding that qualified immunity shielded the defendant's from liability, at least one Court has held on similar facts that such rights are clearly established. See Nesmith Through Nesmith v.

Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa

754 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 1, 2010

Qualified Immunity...................................................1028 1. Clearly established right...........................................1029 2. … qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time and that the officer’s conduct violated that right), the proper question is whether the defendants have

Spinelli

District Court, D. Colorado · Oct 24, 2025

As Imbler and its progeny establish, absolute prosecutorial immunity is intended to protect the judicial process, not the prosecutor. See Briscoe v. … App'x at 705 (discerning no absolute immunity where prosecutors allegedly fabricated evidence “for the purpose of establishing probable cause”).

Caudill v. Hollan

431 F.3d 900 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendant Hollan argues that she deserves qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissals of deputy county clerks was not clearly established, particularly in light of Cope … immunity due to the absence of clearly established law.

Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley

971 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

II QUALIFIED IMMUNITY We review a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity defense de novo. Baker v. Racansky, 887 F.2d 183, 185 (9th Cir.1989). … When a law enforcement officer asserts qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations, the district court must determine whether, in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question

Gooden v. Crain

405 F. Supp. 2d 714 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Dec 13, 2005

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity is available when the plaintiff is seeking damages.

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.

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Calvin Black

706 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Feb 7, 2013

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine a public officer or employee is subject to liability only for violating a federal -9- constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established … We conclude that Black is entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim. III.

Pinder v. Johnson

54 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1995

Qualified immunity under § 1983 shields officials from civil liability unless their actions violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Where the law is clearly established, and where no reasonable officer could believe he was acting in accordance with it, qualified immunity will not attach.

Merring v. City of Carbondale, Pennsylvania

558 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity does not apply where state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright v. … If it was, the law regarding entry into a house to make an arrest is clearly established, and qualified immunity would not apply in the instant case.

Amir M. Meshal v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Public Safety

117 F.4th 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2024

The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing that Meshal failed to allege a violation of clearly established law. … The district court’s qualified-immunity ruling should be re- versed only if the existence of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity “clearly appears on the face of the complaint.”

Green v. Post

574 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 7, 2009

Because we held that the law was not clearly established at the time of the accident, however, we held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident.

Simmie Whitt v. Roger Smith

832 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1987

On summary judgment, the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at the time an action occurred .... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. ... ...

Craft v. Wipf

836 F.2d 412 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 30, 1987

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suit as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Whether an official may prevail in his [or her] qualified immunity defense depends upon the ‘objective reasonableness of [his or her] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.’ ” Id.

Olsen v. Idaho State Board of Medicine

363 F.3d 916 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 7, 2004

Additionally, the Board’s proceedings are clearly adversarial, a proposition which is not in dispute. … We have previously explained that acts occurring during - a disciplinary hearing process clearly fall within the scope of absolute immunity. Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1008 .