Case law

McColley v. County of Rensselaer

740 F.3d 817 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 21, 2014

Such a denial of qualified immunity is reviewed by this Court to determine whether “the qualified immunity defense may be established as a matter of law.” Escalera v. … . it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his action did not violate clearly established law.”

Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs

327 P.3d 891 · Supreme Court of Colorado · May 19, 2014

While a vehicle is not absolutely necessary to play golf, a parking lot next to a golf course clearly promotes golfing. … City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794, 799 (Colo.2000) (taking the allegations in the complaint as true for the purposes of determining whether the injured party established that a public entity waived immunity under the CGIA

Judge v. Shikellamy School District

135 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

In determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established, a broad and generalized, declaration that a clearly established federal right was violated is insufficient. See Anderson v. … Put another way, for the purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, a right is considered clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer, that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Tyler v. Kyler

15 Neb. Ct. App. 939 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 2007

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. … The officers’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. They were entitled to qualified immunity.

Ducksworth v. Landrum

62 F.4th 209 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

Here, as in all qualified immunity cases, the plaintiff must show (A) the violation of a constitutional right that (B) was clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct. … Qualified immunity protects a law enforcement officer from personal liability in a lawsuit unless a plaintiff shows that the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Jones v. Hunt

410 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jun 14, 2005

The district court dismissed her claims against Haberman on the basis of qualified immunity, finding that Haberman’s actions did not amount to a seizure and that, even if they did, the law was not clearly established at … established law, the district court granted Haberman’s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

Tlamka v. Serrell

244 F.3d 628 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 2, 2001

A. 9 Qualified immunity protects a governmental official from suit when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Sexton v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."

Allah v. Brown

351 F. Supp. 2d 278 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2004

Qualified Immunity Even if a plaintiff can establish a constitutional violation, under the doctrine of qualified immunity government officials will not be liable if “[tjheir conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he “could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments.”

King's Grant Inn v. Gilford, et al.

2005 DNH 022 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 16, 2005

qualified immunity from liability for enforcing it. … Because the contours of the legal right defendants violated were not clearly established at the time they acted, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability, and they are entitled

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.”

Reiver v. District of Columbia

925 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2013

Since the Court finds that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights, the officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the motion will … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Malik v. Arapahoe County Department of Social Services

191 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 1999

support a conclusion that Coleman’s actions were outside the scope of absolute immunity, and that both defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.”

Kamel Chaney-Snell v. Andrew Young

98 F.4th 699 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2024

Page 25 clearly established right at the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis. … Besides, Chaney-Snell could not overcome the second step of the qualified-immunity test by using these cases. Unpublished decisions cannot create clearly established rights.

Brenda Mattox and Dona Holly v. City of Forest Park Stephen Vollmar, Police Chief Ray Hodges and Kenneth Hughes

183 F.3d 515 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 1999

immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law. … First Amendment Retaliation The qualified immunity inquiry entails a determination of whether the law allegedly violated was “clearly established” at the time of the events at issue.

Kane ex rel. K.J. v. Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Families

10 F. Supp. 3d 671 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2014

The CYF Motion to Dismiss next argues that the discretionary conduct of the CYF defendants is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity because plaintiff has not pleaded a right that was so clearly established that … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” James v.

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Michael O'Connell v. Christopher Thieneman

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Dec 19, 2025

Thus, in addition to proving each of these elements, O’Connell’s qualified official immunity imposes upon Thieneman the additional burden of showing that the Law Day remarks … Rather, our decision is based solely on the application of qualified immunity. -6- BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joseph Klausing Alan J.

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.”

Edward Wilhelm v. John A. Boggs, Deputy, and Joseph Tanner, Deputy

290 F.3d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2002

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” … established law?

Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

791 F. Supp. 2d 1118 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jun 13, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … They argue that Mata thus cannot satisfy his burden under the qualified immunity test and show that Rahn’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.