Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

Hoard v. Sizemore

198 F.3d 205 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 1999

immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.” … violated clearly established law.

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

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.

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.

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

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. .

Kelly v. Jones

148 F. Supp. 3d 395 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 2015

The right in question was clearly established, such that qualified immunity is unwarranted. ‘ Defendants argue that Officer Jones is entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right allegedly violated was not … clearly established at the time Officer Jones acted.

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

Griffin, Jr. v. Garrison

2011 DNH 008 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jan 13, 2011

Garrison is Entitled to Qualified Immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Ellen Storck v. City of Coral Springs

354 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

[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. … In short, we are satisfied that Storck failed to establish a constitutional violation, and that even if she did, she has not shown that it was “clearly established,” within the meaning of qualified immunity analysis.

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.

In Re Barbara H. Allen, Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Donna Willis, Party in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest. Better Government Bureau, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation v. Darrell v. McGraw Jr., Attorney General, State of West Virginia, Personally and in His Official Capacity, Better Government Bureau Office of the Attorney General State of West Virginia, a Body Politic, a Corporate Instrumentality of Government With Limited Agency and Quasi-Sovereign Capacity Ken Hechler, Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity v. Barbara H. Allen Donna Willis, Parties in Interest

106 F.3d 582 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 6, 1997

51 We hold, therefore, that an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983. … established for qualified immunity purposes."

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

Petro Rentals, Inc. et al. v. The City of Auburn, New York, et al.

District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 13, 2026

Related to § 1983’s “personal involvement” requirement is the affirma- tive defense of qualified immunity, which shields individual defendants from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), to defeat qualified immunity a plaintiff show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; (2) that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

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.

Aversa v. United States

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Oct 21, 1996

And a federal official is qualifiedly immune from suit for an alleged constitutional tort if his "conduct [did] not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a -3- 3 reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity, however, must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of the alleged violation -- "implicit in the Harlow formulation . . . is a temporal dimension: the ______ right must have been clearly