Case law

Hudson v. Hall

231 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000

violated clearly established law." … clearly established law.

Slay v. Marion County Sheriff's Department

603 N.E.2d 877 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 1992

IV We next address the issue of qualified immunity. … Jones argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 In particular, he con *887 tends that the rights in question were not "clearly established" when the shooting occurred, in May of 1982. While Tennessee v.

Campbell v. Casey

166 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 29, 2016

Defendant seeks summary judgment' due to qualified immunity as well as on the merits. a. … That right has been clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court for decades.

Hucker v. City of Beaumont

144 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. Texas · May 18, 2001

When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a clearly established constitutional right. See Sie-gert v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense requiring the defendant to both plead and establish his entitlement to immunity. See Tamez v.

TULLIS v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 9, 2023

Additionally, even if a reasonable jury could find an Eighth Amendment violation, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because Tullis has not shown a clearly established right to … Pauly. 137 S.Ct. 548, 551 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Rebecca Judge v. City of Lowell

160 F.3d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

The Court specifically reserved judgment on the question whether its “qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in eases involving individual government officials.” Id. … “This option exists,” the Court went on to state, “even if the official chooses not to plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.”

Villages, LLC v. Longhi

166 Conn. App. 685 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Jul 5, 2016

plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion in which it contended that neither qualified immunity, governmental immunity, nor absolute immunity barred its claims against the defendant given the intentional nature … 52-557n (c), which provides qualified immunity for uncompensated members of munici- pal commissions and boards.

Nicole K. Brinkman v. City of Des Moines, Iowa

Court of Appeals of Iowa · Oct 11, 2023

Further, whether the law was clearly established is inextricably intertwined with the new qualified immunity defense and only relevant to this case to the 3 The court applied only the particularity and plausibility … Id. at 782−84.  7 extent the new qualified immunity defense is operative in this case, and we already have concluded that qualified immunity is not operative

Dean v. Earle

866 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Oct 28, 1994

legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time the actions were taken. … Thus, Officer Ward did not violate Dean’s clearly established constitutional rights and is immune from monetary liability under § 1983.

Crystal Thompson v. Andrew Dill

930 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 23, 2019

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim unless (1) "the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right," and (2) the "right was clearly established … When the denial is based on qualified immunity, however, we have limited jurisdiction to decide the purely legal issue of whether the alleged facts support a claim of violation of clearly established law. See Raines v.

P.G.S. v. S. Hendricks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 2025

qualified immunity. … With respect to qualified immunity, this Court applies that doctrine to state officers when considering federal law violations and will be found if an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established rights which a

Stack v. Killian

96 F.3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 1996

Officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The question of whether an official is protected by qualified immunity turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.

Stodghill v. Wellston School District

512 F.3d 472 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 9, 2008

The SAB members moved to dismiss the claim on the basis of qualified immunity. … The SAB members sought qualified immunity.

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

J.R. v. Gloria

599 F. Supp. 2d 182 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 26, 2009

The second qualified immunity prong examines whether the contours of this right were clearly established in 1996. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 . … Even if this final parameter of the right was clearly established *202 in 1996, Defendants Gloria and Terry are still entitled to qualified immunity because, under the third and final prong, each would have an objectively

Logan v. City of Pullman

392 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 4, 2005

The Supreme Court has established a two-part analysis for determining whether qualified immunity is appropriate in a suit against an officer. … In the absence of binding precedent, the Court looks to whatever law is available to ascertain whether the law is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, including decisions of state courts, other circuits, and

Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt

813 F.2d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Mar 10, 1987

not “clearly established.” … The district courts in the cases presently before us concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Elrod and Branti clearly established that the first amendment protects government employees from

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Clement v. Gomez

298 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 6, 2002

"If the law did not put the [officials] on notice that [their] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . I. … Clearly Established Law 23 The qualified immunity analysis requires us to further consider whether the rights of the prisoners in this case were clearly established at the time of incident.