Case law

Retzlaff v. De La VINA

606 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 4, 2009

Finally, defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to Retzlaffs federal constitutional claims. Defendants have presented evidence that their actions were reasonable in light of clearly established law. Kinney v. … that defendants’ actions violated clearly established federal law.

Gordon v. Sadasivan

144 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1985

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendant knew of should have known. … We also find that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Grayson v. Ross

454 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 19, 2006

If the answer is no, we grant qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, we go on to determine whether the right was clearly established. … Sharum is entitled to qualified immunity. 27 b.

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

Bueno v. Chekush

355 F. Supp. 3d 987 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 21, 2018

Clearly Established Law Regarding the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. … The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established .... Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.

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

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

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.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health

108 F. Supp. 3d 963 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 15, 2015

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified-Immunity Analysis. … with the prior case law and granted qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law.

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.

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."

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.

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

Woodard v. Mennella

861 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 25, 1994

disposing of claims barred by qualified immunity.” … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, an official is liable for damages only where his or her conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.

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.”

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.

Elliott v. Cheshire County, NH

750 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 9, 1990

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … the defendants qualified immunity.

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.

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.