Case law

Boyd v. Benton County

374 F.3d 773 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 28, 2004

Qualified Immunity The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right. … Consequently, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Boyd’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from dangerous flash-bang devices under these circumstances was not clearly established. B.

Snow v. City of El Paso, Texas

501 F. Supp. 2d 826 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 4, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials from both civil damages and trial “if their actions were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Bazan v. … The Court employs a two step process to resolve a qualified immunity defense. First, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has alleged “the violation of a clearly established Constitutional *835 right.”

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

Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi, Curtis Henderson v. Michael P. Lane and J. Gallassi

979 F.2d 466 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

An official is entitled to qualified immunity when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Williams v. … Thus, there is no “clearly established” right to more than one hour of exercise per week, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

A.S. ex rel. J.S. v. Reaves

1 So. 3d 980 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Jun 27, 2008

Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, to overcome qualified immunity, not only must the government official violate a clearly established statutory or … Fitzgerald and concluded that the constitutional right violated in that case was a clearly established one.

Cerrone v. Cahill

84 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 28, 2000

Standard for Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for acts undertaken in the course of their duties if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … When a right is clearly established, qualified immunity also attaches “insofar as it was objectively reasonable to believe that [the government agent’s] acts did not violate these rights.” Calamia v.

Albert Darruthy v. City of Miami

351 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

Ferraro: Qualified immunity offers “complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as ‘their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … [are] specific enough to establish clearly the law applicable to particular conduct and circumstances and to overcome qualified immunity, even in the total absence of case law.

Martinez v. Mathis

970 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 1997

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … “For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government

PANAGACOS v. Towery

782 F. Supp. 2d 1183 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2011

Qualified Immunity. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established when viewed in the specific context of the case.

Coffin v. Brandau

609 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

To strip the Deputies of qualified immunity, the Coffins must have had a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from a warrantless entry of their garage or warrantless arrest therein. … Therefore, we conclude that the Deputies’ “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of *1214 qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 . IV.

Melvin Alexander, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Lamar Alexander, Governor

706 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 1983

If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at-, 102 S.Ct. at 2737, and proving either that the law was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s alleged injury, or, if the law was clearly established, that he neither knew nor should have

Kubany v. School Board of Pinellas County

839 F. Supp. 1544 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the state of the law was so well established that a reasonable official should have been on notice that his or her chai-' lenged conduct was unlawful, that official is entitled to qualified immunity. -.Id.

Kenjoh Outdoor, LLC v. Jack Marchbanks

23 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 11, 2022

So the district court properly granted Nathan Fling qualified immunity. Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) they violate a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established.” … We will “affirm[] the application of qualified immunity” because it is “apparent from the complaint that the law was not clearly established because ‘not a single judicial opinion’ ha[s] held the official’s action unconstitutional

Brian Dias William Mason, Sr. v. Jose Elique Michael Murray University and Community College System of Nevada University of Nevada, Las Vegas

436 F.3d 1125 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 6, 2006

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Appellants assert Murray and Elique (the “Supervisors”) violated their clearly established constitutional rights by initiating an investigation without giving Appellants proper notice under Nev.Rev. … The district court applied the doctrine of qualified immunity and dismissed these claims. 5 To determine whether summary judgment on qualified immunity was proper, we must first evaluate whether, taking the facts in the light

Doherty v. Rutgers School of Law-Newark

651 F.2d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 16, 1981

The affidavits clearly show that plaintiff would not have been admitted to any of the law schools even if no minority group members had been admitted. … He clearly was qualified for admission and the trial court so found. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, slip op. at 5, No. 31287 (Calif.Super.Ct.

TEICHBERG v. Smith

734 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 17, 2010

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … Even if the seizure of the backpack was unreasonable, Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Hunsberger v. Wood

564 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 3, 2008

immunity analysis and answers the question of whether the right was clearly established. … immunity, but private parties do not have qualified immunity.

Robinson v. Bell

767 P.2d 177 · Wyoming Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1989

Immunity from suit is obviously an intended incentive for employers to qualify under the Act. … The relationship between Genuine Parts Company and NAPA is not clearly established in the record. .

Getlin v. Zoll

707 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 20, 2010

Qualified Immunity “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 … “Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ or if it is

Leonard Foster v. Dustin Patrick

806 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 20, 2015

Patrick Page 4 precluded an award of qualified immunity. Patrick filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. … Clearly Established Right Although it is true that the right must be clearly established in a “‘particularized’ sense,” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier v.