Case law

Collins v. City of N.Y.

295 F. Supp. 3d 350 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2018

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly *363 established' at the time of the violation." Tolan v. … immunity was not clearly established."

JONATHAN CRUZ VS. THE CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3570-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2021

Dougherty Also Has Qualified Immunity "The affirmative defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their public responsibilities … "[Q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 449 N.J. Super. 288, 304 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Ramos v.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1292 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because Holbrook did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; Holbrook’s inspection of the records was within her discretionary authority

Buchhorn v. Douglas County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners

District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 2, 2025

clearly established if a case exists that is factually identical. … than their prosecutorial duties, they are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Horne v. Crozier

565 N.W.2d 50 · South Dakota Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1997

To find whether qualified immunity applies, the test is to ask if the officer’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable officer would have known at the time. Harlow v. … . [¶ 7] Law enforcement officers will be shielded by qualified immunity if (1) their conduct violates no clearly established constitutional or statutory rights; or (2) it is objectively reasonable for them to believe their

Shattuck v. Town of Stratford

233 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Nov 13, 2002

Even where the plaintiffs, federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to … violate” clearly established constitutional rights).

Trujillo v. Simer

934 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 25, 1996

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The fact that Chief Judge Matsch later ruled the consent was involuntary in the criminal case does not establish that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2022 NY Slip Op 00252 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2022

At the same time, we find that the TA was not entitled to pretrial dismissal of the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. … In that case, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a governmental body claiming qualified immunity based on its having studied a particular condition alleged to have caused injury must establish that the study was indeed

Staco v. Miami-Dade County

536 F. Supp. 2d 1301 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2008

This heightened pleading standard is important because the court in a qualified immunity case must determine whether the individual defendant’s actions violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. Id. … The affirmative defense of qualified 'immunity protects public actors from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Austin v. Redford Township Police Department

859 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2011

The qualified immunity objections The defendants’ fourth objection does not challenge the magistrate’s conclusion that the law concerning the use of Tasers on subdued suspects is clearly established. … The fact that defendant Pauli may have violated a clearly established constitutional right necessarily means that defendant Pauli is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jones v. Cannon

174 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1999

As discussed, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing discretionary functions unless the officer has violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable police officer would have known. … This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.

Jackson v. McCurry

303 F. Supp. 3d 1367 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Dec 22, 2017

To overcome a qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show both (1) that the relevant defendant violated their constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. … To overcome Oates's qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must prove that it was clearly established at the time of Oates's search of EDJ's phone that such a search would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Munjoy Sporting & Athletic Club v. Dow

2000 Me. 141 · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Jul 21, 2000

“A public official claiming qualified immunity ... must establish either that he or she did not -violate the plaintiffs rights or that given the state of the law a reasonable official would not have understood that he [or … A right is clearly established if “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that- right.

Brown v. Newton County Sheriff's Office

273 F. Supp. 3d 1142 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 7, 2017

Qualified Immunity Defense Defendants argue that Officers Shirley and Ramsey are entitled to qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for shooting Ms. Brown. … There are three ways to show that a right was clearly established: (1) a “materially similar” case has already been decided; (2) a broad statement of principle within the Constitution, statute, or case law clearly establishes

Burns v. PA Department of Corrections

642 F.3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 20, 2011

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit even if their actions were unconstitutional as long as those officials‘ actions ―d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to the official claiming it as a defense.

Grancid Camilo-Robles v. Jose R. Zapata, A/K/A Jose R. Zapata-Rivera

175 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Apr 20, 1999

Because of its focus on tort causation and culpability, the qualified immunity analysis in neglect-of-risk cases seldom, if ever, raises abstract questions of law about whether a right was clearly established. … We concluded that the applicable law, and, hence, the plaintiffs’ asserted right, was clearly established by *46 1993.

Gean v. Hattaway

330 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 6, 2003

We have established that there are two ways in which a plaintiff seeking to overcome the bar of qualified immunity can show that a right was clearly established in the law at the time the alleged violation occurred. … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs must show that the right allegedly violated was “clearly established in a more particularized ... sense,” Anderson v.

Adams v. May

903 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 19, 2012

qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable in light of the information available to him and the law that was clearly established at the time of his actions. … May is entitled to qualified immunity regarding his actions of applying pepper spray. 2.

Davis v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma

380 F. Supp. 3d 1163 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity Sergeant Wollmershauser asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … clearly established under the second prong.

Nichols v. Jacobsen Construction Co.

811 Utah Adv. Rep. 47 · Utah Supreme Court · Apr 28, 2016

¶3 We conclude that Jacobsen qualifies as an “eligible employer” under the workers’ compensation statutes and has fulfilled all three of the above requirements, thereby qualifying for immunity from suit. … The court held that Jacobsen would not qualify for immunity “if a significant time passed” before Jacobsen started paying Mr. Nichols’ benefits. Id. ¶ 13.