Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.”).

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

Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services

583 F.3d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 2, 2009

immunity, arguing their actions did not violate any of Nelson’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity may protect government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , but not if their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

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.

Haley Olson v. County of Grant

127 F.4th 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 10, 2025

immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. … Though Carpenter violated Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights, the law was not clearly established at the time, thus entitling Carpenter to qualified immunity. A.

Cannavino v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, L.L.C.

2017 Ohio 380 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

Williams contends that he is shielded from such claims under qualified immunity. … if their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo

817 F.2d 19 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 1987

GEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1988 case presents the question whether the plaintiff has vitiated the defendants’ qualified immunity defense. … The defendants asserted their qualified immunity defense. The district court dismissed on summary judgment, 1 on the basis that Whatley had failed to overcome the immunity defense.

Yeasin v. Durham

224 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 1, 2016

plaintiff shows (1) the defendant’s violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that the right the official violated was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. 35 Accordingly, the qualified immunity … immunity from a claim of a First Amendment violation as such rights were not clearly established); Bell v.