Case law

Alto v. City of Chicago

863 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 25, 1994

Qualified immunity will apply to an officer’s alleged misconduct unless (1) the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated, and (2) these rights were “clearly established” at the time the alleged violation occurred. … Because the court could not find such actions clearly unreasonable under the circumstances, qualified immunity was appropriate. Id.

Suddith v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISS.

977 So. 2d 1158 · Court of Appeals of Mississippi · Jul 31, 2007

Qualified or "good faith" immunity "shields state officials from liability unless their conduct violates `clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … As discussed in the next section of this opinion, Suddith fails to establish that there has been a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Bolden v. Village of Monticello

344 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … As noted above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct

Sidney Arnold v. Steven Williams

979 F.3d 262 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

pleading the defense of qualified immunity.’” … In this case, Arnold broadly addressed qualified immunity in his original complaint by alleging that Deputy Williams “knowingly violated” “clearly established law.”

Crenshaw v. Lister

556 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2009

Turning to the issue of qualified immunity and, after finding that Crenshaw had to establish the violation of a clearly-established right, the court concluded that, under Crenshaw’s version of the facts, “no reasonable … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages for torts committed while performing discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Galette, C. v. NJ Transit

293 A.3d 649 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. … Specifically, the Court has recognized that the historical circumstances of the passage of the Eleventh Amendment clearly evince an intent “to preserve the States' traditional immunity from private suits.”

Parrish v. Ball

594 F.3d 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 10, 2010

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Hicks v. Phipps

765 F. Supp. 1541 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 5, 1990

Public officials have qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. … Therefore, Vanover is entitled to qualified immunity from Mrs. Hicks’ claim for civil damages.

Nathan Rinne v. Greg Hasty

140 F.4th 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2025

record violated a clearly established federal right.” … There are factual disputes as to these issues, and “[i]n order for us to reach [the Commissioners’] ‘legal argument’ that [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law, we would have to exceed our jurisdiction . .

Ortiz v. Torgenson

District Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”

Higgins v. Town of Concord

246 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2017

The Court cannot determine whether Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The defendants argue ' that Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts One and Two. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

69 F. Supp. 3d 1061 · District Court, D. Nevada · Nov 21, 2014

Second, Defendants argue that, even if Catanese violated the Fourth Amendment, he should still receive qualified immunity because Koiro did not carry his burden of showing that the right violated was clearly established. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Chappell

Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 26, 2024

Even if the Pickering factors weighed more in Moschetti’s favor, Westfall would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the factors would favor an employee over an organization akin … See Brickey, 828 F.3d at 304 (holding qualified immunity was warranted when balancing of the employee’s and employer’s interests were not clearly established). 16 a substantial factor

Redpath v. City of Overland Park

857 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 1994

That objective test is in tension with, but not inconsistent with, a claim of qualified immunity where the existence of a violation of the clearly established law depends on the government official’s subjective intent. … When qualified immunity is granted because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation—rather than on a determination that the law was not clearly established—such a finding is equivalent to a decision on the merits

Hendricks v. Mallozzi

District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 24, 2023

In the alternative, Defendant Delutis argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … the program, and (3) Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

John Leslie Chapman v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution, Robert O. Lampert, Director, Steve Hargett, Warden, Kelli Dolan, CPL Property Officer

2016 WY 5 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2016

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id., 555 U.S. at 232, 129 S.Ct. at 815-16. … Summary judgment was therefore appropriate. [¶23] Again, using the analysis for qualified immunity above, Chapman fails to show there is clearly established law that would put Cpl.

Kim Brown v. Muhlenberg Township

269 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 11, 2001

IV. 65 Let me amplify my earlier analysis explaining the second prong -- the clearly established prong-- of the qualified immunity doctrine. … the clearly established element of the immunity doctrine.

Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills

336 Ill. App. 3d 635 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 25, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants further argue that they enjoy qualified immunity from section 1983 liability because, even if they in fact lacked probable cause to prosecute Sandra Fabiano, they reasonably believed that they … “But if a reasonable officer would not have believed that the person had committed a crime, then the officer, whatever he did or did not believe, is acting contrary to clearly established law and therefore has no immunity