Case law

3502 Partners LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 01118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 2026

Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit ( see MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc. , 74 AD3d 499, 499-500 [1st Dept 2010]). … In any event, defendants have failed to make a sufficient showing that all of them would be immune from punitive damages, and there is no dispute that one of them — Tutor Perini Corporation — does not qualify as a public

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.

Johnson-El v. Schoemehl

878 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 22, 1989

of clearly established law. … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987) (to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege that the official violated a clearly established right, the contours of which are sufficiently clear that

SER City of Bridgeport v. Hon. John Lewis Marks, Jr., Judge

233 W. Va. 449 · West Virginia Supreme Court · May 27, 2014

“The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. … City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), absolute statutory immunity, like qualified immunity, “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that “is effectively lost if the case is

Krinitt v. Idaho Department of Fish & Game

162 Idaho 425 · Idaho Supreme Court · Jul 11, 2017

Krinitt opposed the motion, arguing: (1) IDFG was not Perry’s statutory employer and therefore did not qualify for statutory immunity; and (2) even if IDFG was Perry’s statutory employer, IDFG had waived its statutory immunity … Here, IDFG qualifies as a category one statutory employer of Perry. The “Service Level Agreement” between IDFG and the DOI clearly shows IDFG contracted with the DOI to secure aviation services.

Ex Parte Sawyer

876 So. 2d 433 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Sep 5, 2003

and the § 1983 claim against her on the basis of qualified immunity. … and qualified immunity.

Wagner v. Northern Berks Regional Police

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2020

C Equally important, Horner is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established that an officer lacks probable cause where the affirmative defenses of compulsory joinder or Double Jeopardy … Does, 779 F.3d 84, 96 (2d Cir. 2015) (granting qualified immunity to officers because if a “defense rests on . . . a legal theory that is not so clearly established . . . it cannot be said that any reasonable officer would

Catlin v. City of Wheaton

574 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that (1) the facts make out a violation of the plaintiffs federal rights, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Pamela S. Birkenholz v. Gary Sluyter, Jon P. Schrage and Larry L. Muir, Daniel Keniston and Woodhaven Learning Center

857 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 13, 1988

If such a violation would not have been apparent in light of available remedies, Birkenholz’ due process right is not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes. … Because any violation could not have been apparent, Birkenholz’ due process right was not “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Kerr v. Waddell

183 Ariz. 1 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Jul 13, 1995

that they were entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity. … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Jenne v. Maranto

825 So. 2d 409 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Aug 21, 2002

Section 216(b), in turn, clearly provides for suits by individuals against States. … Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying ... qualified immunity should be...

Johnson v. Wright

234 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2002

Violation of Clearly Established Law The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes “clearly established law” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense. See Hope v. … Objective Reasonableness of Officers’ Actions It is not sufficient for the qualified immunity analysis to determine that the right violated was clearly established at the time of its violation.

Perry v. Mendoza

83 F.4th 313 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2023

To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the officer (1) violated a constitutional right that was (2) clearly established at the time. Laviage v. Fite, 47 F.4th 402, 405–06 (5th Cir. 2022). … Even assuming those decisions stand for that categorical proposition (which we need not decide), they are too far afield from the present case to clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Lawrence J. Korb v. John F. Lehman, Jr. Everett Pyatt Melvyn R. Paisley, and Carl M. Smith

919 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 1991

It decided, therefore, that “plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim of violation of clearly-established law and defendants are ... protected by qualified immunity.” Mitchell v. … The district court, therefore, was correct in finding that the appellees did not violate “clearly established” law and were thus protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Miguel Gutierrez v. Michael Kermon

722 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2013

Qualified immunity affords an even greater level of protection by shielding officers from “suit for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the … does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Aspen Exploration Corp. v. Sheffield

739 P.2d 150 · Alaska Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987

Second, Aspen asserts that our prior deci *153 sions establish a rule of qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. … See generally Comment, Immunity: Eliminating the Subjective Element from the Qualified Immunity Standard in Actions Brought Against Government Officials, 22 Washburn L.Rev. 577 (1983). *158 The one exception established to

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

603 F. Supp. 2d 632 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which … An official is entitled to qualified immunity where: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct; or (3) the official’s actions

Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico

890 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 13, 1995

Qualified immunity protects government officials engaging in discretionary activities from personal liability, unless a reasonable official would have known that his or her actions would violate a “clearly established” constitutional … Defendants contend that if there exists a cause of action for same-sex harassment, it is not “clearly established.” On this basis, they argue that they are entitled to a grant of qualified immunity.

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

766 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 2011

Pertinent to qualified immunity, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense “on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the predicate establishing the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Bethel v. … Second, “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Green v. Brantley

719 F. Supp. 1570 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 1989

to qualified immunity. … According to Anderson , qualified immunity requires not only a finding that general legal principles were clearly established, but also a finding that the law was clearly established with such particularity that a reasonable