Case law

Greene v. Knight

564 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 29, 2008

demonstrating that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law. … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue.

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.

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.

Gorman v. Bishop

919 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Mar 26, 1996

“In other words, to decide whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, a court must determine whether the official’s action was objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … Accordingly, Bishop is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. C.

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

Mary Zapata v. Manuel Barba

750 F.3d 481 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 18, 2014

established constitutional rights. … “Consequently, this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.

Fletcher v. United States Parole Commission

550 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2008

In conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the Court assumed that the facts alleged by Fletcher would establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and focused its inquiry on whether, under “clearly established” … Finding that the law was not clearly established on this issue at the time his reparole was denied in 2000, the Court held that qualified immunity applied. Id.

Cornejo v. Bell

592 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 4, 2010

Even qualified immunity, however, is sufficient to shield executive employees from civil liability under § 1983 if either “(1) their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have … known,’ or (2) ‘it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.’ ” Young v.

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.

Parker v. Board Of Regents Of Tulsa Junior College

981 F.2d 1159 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 17, 1992

Id.; Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 . 10 Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, "[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established." … Accordingly, they maintain that plaintiff's action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 14 To determine whether plaintiff's action is barred by qualified immunity, we first consider whether she was deprived of

Whitlock v. Brown

596 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Brown disputes this and also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. … were unconstitutional in light of clearly established law?

Morgan v. Stringer

945 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 1996

established constitutional right at the time that they acted (consistently with that reason for the rule, Harlow, id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 stressed the notion that motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity … The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to *1132 summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing

Braxton v. Matthews

883 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Apr 28, 1995

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Next the Court must examine whether Defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Wiley v. … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Smyser v. City of Peoria

215 Ariz. 428 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jun 12, 2007

Nothing in Clouse suggests that the legislature had authority to grant either absolute or qualified immunity only to the state; clearly, the opinion upholds the legislature’s authority with respect to “public entities and … He noted that "common law immunity of the state’s subgovernmental units was not recognized or established *434 for all units or for all purposes.

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.”).

Eaton v. Meneley

180 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

immunity from suit on plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims because plaintiffs have not alleged facts which establish that he violated any of their clearly established rights. … Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court eliminated the subjective, or intent, element of qualified immunity, and held that a plaintiff could defeat a claim of qualified immunity only by demonstrating that the defendant violated clearly

Thompson v. Grida

656 F.3d 365 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 8, 2011

Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation … Appellants cite a number of cases to support their qualified immunity argument that the right not to be arrested in the circumstances presented in this case is not clearly established.

Parkway Bank & Trust v. City of Darien

43 Ill. App. 3d 400 · Appellate Court of Illinois · Nov 17, 1976

On this basis an award of damages against public officials with qualified immunity “would be inimical to the efficient functioning of government.” (Rasmussen v. City of Lake Forest, 404 F. Supp. 148, 159 .) … Supp. 148, 159 , states that even where government officials are granted qualified immunity they are still absolutely immune “to damages in the absence of malice ° * * whenever at the time of the action a substantial question

Sheila Hensley v. Ronald Gassman

693 F.3d 681 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 11, 2012

Fourth Amendment Claim The standards for determining qualified immunity are well-established. … Clearly Established Rights The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was clearly established.

Griffin v. City of Clanton, Ala.

932 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 1, 1996

Qualified immunity protects an officer where a “reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.” … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless clearly established law would inevitably lead every reasonable officer to conclude that the force used was excessive.