Case law

Bombard v. Volp

44 F. Supp. 3d 514 · District Court, D. Vermont · Sep 8, 2014

Qualified Immunity Officer Volp has also moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … An assertion of qualified immunity requires a court to determine “(1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3)

May v. Fulton County, Ga.

925 F. Supp. 769 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 7, 1995

Qualified immunity may only preclude individual capacity claims. … For a court to find that a plaintiff was deprived of a clearly established right for the purpose of qualified immunity analysis, ‘“[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

Matthew Locke v. County of Hubbard

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 17, 2025

While I disagree with the court’s constitutional analysis, I need not resolve that inquiry as the case can be easily resolved under the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Pearson v. … This does not constitute a violation of a clearly established right; therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Corral v. Montgomery County

4 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 5, 2014

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims and “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

John Lanigan, Sr. v. Village of East Hazel Crest, Illinois, Officer Robert Wasek, Chief Ray Robertson

110 F.3d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 28, 1997

Finally, the district court found that all three individual defendants were shielded from liability by qualified immunity because their conduct was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Cournia set forth the test for qualified immunity as follows: First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred.

Yvette Felarca v. Robert Birgeneau

891 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 2018

Nonetheless, he believed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct. … Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the law at the time they acted did not clearly establish the illegality of their conduct.

Pena v. Deprisco

432 F.3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 9, 2005

Qualified Immunity: Was the Constitutional Right Clearly Established? … Although it is a close question, we think that the substantive due process violation that the plaintiffs allege here was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Olufemi Anthony Lukan v. North Forest Isd, Gloria S. Scott, L v. Brisco

183 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 27, 1999

First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1052 (5th Cir.1998). … Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. See id.

Prokey v. Watkins

942 F.2d 67 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 19, 1991

The general rule of qualified immunity, set out in Harlow v. … Explaining the Harlow standard, the Court said that, [ujnless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the

Lory Lombardo v. John F. Harvey, Sandy Jenkin, Cathy Smolkovich

865 F.2d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 12, 1988

of the clearly established law and information he possessed). 9 Procedurally, this Circuit has placed the burden on the plaintiff once the issue of qualified immunity is raised: 10 Where a defendant official is entitled … to qualified immunity, the plaintiff must plead facts which, if true, describe a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable public official, under an objective standard would

Cope v. Coleman County

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 26, 2024

In order to overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged … ’s holding of Monroe in a cell containing a phone cord did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.”); id.

Robert P. Brennan v. Township of Northville, Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee, Individually and in Their Official Capacities

78 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 26, 1996

Lawrence Demeter and Fred Yankee appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this action premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … II A denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be reviewed on interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v.

Williams v. Prince George's County

112 Md. App. 526 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 4, 1996

Because of these considerations, immunity is granted to officers who act reasonably, albeit mistakenly, in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed without the benefit of hindsight. … immunity because their actions were in conformity with “clearly established” legal rules.

Blaylock v. Schwinden

862 F.2d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 7, 1988

Moreover, plaintiffs were clearly seeking damages from the public treasury. … A state indemnification statute does not automatically extend immunity to state officials. See Demery v.

Bennett v. Murphy

274 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jan 2, 2002

that claims of qualified immunity are to be evaluated using a two-step process. … immunity claim move to the second step of the analysis to determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

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.

Henry Lavado, Jr. v. Patrick W. Keohane

992 F.2d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 22, 1993

The prison officials again respond that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “[t]here is ... no clearly established law holding that a prisoner has a constitutional right to have his legal related mail opened only … whether the officers did acts which violate clearly established rights.”); Pecsi v.

Taylor v. City of New York

269 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 23, 2003

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must first “allege a violation of a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right. … Since plaintiff has plainly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Curry v.

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

796 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated” in light of clearly established law____ [T]he dismissal of a claim against an officer asserting qualified immunity in no way logically entails … They can do so by establishing a good faith, qualified immunity defense. This good faith defense is not available to the municipality.

Dillon Bracken v. Kinchung Chung

869 F.3d 771 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 23, 2017

Qualified Immunity We first address whether Chung may invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. “There are two questions that must be answered” when an officer seeks qualified immunity. Jensen v. … CHUNG 7 is available generally, we must determine whether [the officer] is entitled to it in this case,” i.e., whether the officer “violated a clearly established constitutional . . . right.”