Case law

Hamid Harris v. City of Newark (085028) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions generally from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established.’”

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).

Knouse v. Primecare Med. of W. Va.

333 F. Supp. 3d 584 · United States District Court · Sep 24, 2018

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was "clearly established at the time." Reichle v. … The court was asked to "define the right at issue" under a qualified immunity analysis: The defendant asked the court to frame the analysis as whether it is "clearly established that a prison medical provider runs afoul of

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

380 F. Supp. 3d 1068 · District Court, D. Nevada · Mar 30, 2019

Clearly Established Right "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Kisela v. … Assuming this result will obtain-as the Court must at summary judgment-Pollard's warrantless entry violated Plaintiffs' clearly established rights. The Court, therefore, denies Pollard 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.

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.

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

Duhani v. Town of Grafton

52 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 26, 2014

The qualified immunity analysis requires a court to decide ‘(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was “clearly established … Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

44 Conn. App. 359 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 25, 1997

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. … With this standard of review in mind, we turn now to the law concerning municipal immunity. “ ‘The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Bartrug v. Rubin

986 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 25, 1997

However, there are no facts alleged which establish that these acts are violative of a “clearly established constitutional right.” … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials fi-om civil liability as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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.

Hike v. Hall

427 N.W.2d 158 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 20, 1988

Conversely, in situations in which assistant state’s attorneys’ activities are not quasi-judicial and consequently are clothed only with qualified immunity, that qualified immunity applies as well to a claim that the state … of liberty ... the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest.

Rome v. Romero

225 F.R.D. 640 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 22, 2004

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Even where a qualified immunity defense is asserted, some limited discovery is still permitted.

Latoya Aaron v. Darren King

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 2026

Qualified immunity shields officials from lawsuits for money damages unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012). … But Aaron’s cases, yet again, turn on materially different facts and thus fail to provide the kind of clearly established law needed to pierce qualified immunity. In Champion v.