Case law

Chambers v. Pennycook

641 F.3d 898 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 6, 2011

right was clearly established. … The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the right that was violated was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 816.

Rose v. Town of Concord

971 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 1997

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their actions “[do] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … An Officer’s “qualified immunity is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Id.; see also Topp v. Wolkowski, 994 F.2d 45, 48 (1st Cir.1993).

M.W. Ex Rel. T.W. v. Madison County Board of Education

262 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 7, 2003

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … was clearly established.

Anela v. City of Wildwood

595 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 1984

The defendant next argues that immunity law developed in the § 1983 context entitles him to a qualified immunity. This argument, the court believes, has some merit. … It is difficult to say that this constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Daboul v. Board of Visitors of the College of William & Mary

64 Va. Cir. 499 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Apr 10, 2002

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. ...

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

DiPace v. Goord

308 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2004

On the second issue, plaintiffs argued that the proposed defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to adequate medical care for serious medical needs was clearly established and no reasonable jury … Second, even where such a constitutional right has been violated, the government employee is entitled to qualified immunity “ ‘if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall

312 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 11, 2002

or statutory right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred. … If so, we must subsequently ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. If the plaintiff does not satisfy either portion of the two-pronged test, the Court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. Gross v.

Powell v. Barrett

376 F. Supp. 2d 1340 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 5, 2005

established” test for qualified immunity) to sustain their liability under an entrustment-based theory. … of qualified immunity.

King v. Williams

5 Ohio St. 3d 137 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1983

The issue presented in this case is whether the driver of an emergency medical services vehicle operated by the city of Akron, and the city itself, qualify for immunity from liability under R.C. 701.02. … Appellee Williams was clearly employed by the city of Akron as a member of the fire department. In addition, the evidence is uncontradicted that the ambulance was on an emergency run at the time of the accident.

Everitt v. DeMarco

704 F. Supp. 2d 122 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2010

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right possessed by the Plaintiffs.

McGrath v. Tavares

757 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Qualified Immunity In any event, even if a constitutional violation was established, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly … does not need to establish the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity

Benavidez v. Shutiva

2015 NMCA 65 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2015

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a “plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the … Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the lower court’s decision was reversed.

Crigger v. McIntosh

254 F. Supp. 3d 891 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2017

Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (i) whether the facts as alleged establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was clearly established

Clifton v. Borough of Eddystone

824 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2011

A state official with qualified immunity has no civil liability for discretionary conduct so long as he does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Furthermore, the right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of handcuffing is clearly established and is not defeated by qualified immunity. Id. at 778 . Plaintiff was not subject to excessive force.

State v. Sieminski

92 N.E.3d 1252 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2017

“A statute must clearly proclaim its own retroactivity to overcome the presumption of prospective application. Retroactivity is not to be inferred.” State v. … Sieminski’s motion to dismiss because she is not a qualified individual pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(a)(viii), and therefore not eligible for immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b).

Marquez v. Gutierrez

322 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 6, 2003

The qualified immunity inquiry has two parts: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law could a reasonable state official have believed his conduct was lawful?” … Accordingly, Gutierrez is entitled to qualified immunity. REVERSED.

Gerhart v. McLendon

714 F. App'x 327 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory' or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged … The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer’s failure to do so violated clearly established law and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 955-56 .

Jeremy Nelson v. County of Wright James R. Hudek

162 F.3d 986 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 10, 1998

Government officials performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The standard was clearly established. 5 Whether Hudek is entitled to qualified immunity must be examined from the perspective of the situation as he understood it at the time. Anderson v.

Hogan v. Pataki

953 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jan 15, 1997

Moreover, qualified immunity protects a defendant even where the right in question was clearly established if it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate that right. … Naturally, then, in so far as the individually named defendants are concerned, they are entitled to qualified immunity in that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which