Case law

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.

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi

202 F.3d 730 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 26, 2000

Qualified Immunity 7  In considering Gaines and Perez’s qualified immunity claim, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the “qualified . . . … But that dispute is not dispositive of the qualified immunity question at this moment.

In Re Scott County Master Docket

672 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 2, 1987

were not “clearly established.” … “[Qualified immunity will be forfeited only when at the time of the conduct in question it is clearly established that plaintiffs have the particular constitutional right and that the statutory and regulatory provisions in

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.

Holton v. Mohon

684 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1987

Such a finding leads this Court to a discussion of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is available only to governmental officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. … Because the Fourth Amendment rule on warrantless arrests is “clearly established” law, the defense of qualified immunity is available only if a reasonable officer would have believed that probable cause existed to believe

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.

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).

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

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.

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

Cross v. Mokwa

547 F.3d 890 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … the plaintiffs clearly established federal rights.”

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 .

Marilyn Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers

15 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 1994

In addition to establishing a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must show that the right in question was “clearly established” to overcome a defense of qualified immunity. … immunity because clearly established law renders such action unconstitutional. 1 .

Elder v. Holloway

751 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, D. Idaho · Nov 21, 1990

another’s ... clearly established constitutional rights?” … Qualified immunity. This court’s analysis on whether or not there was a valid arrest under the circumstances in this case controls the out *866 come on the issue of qualified immunity.

Darryl Williams v. Paul Delo Bill Hartley Raphael Coad Greg Dunn Unknown Wells, Officer Norma Lavrrar Paul Stuart, Officer

49 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 7, 1995

“Generally, prison officials may rely on the defense of qualified immunity to protect them from liability for civil damages” if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that would have been known to a reasonable … With respect to Williams’s claim for damages, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Eighth Amendment right that

Frierson v. Goetz

227 F. Supp. 2d 889 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 10, 2002

The plaintiff argues that the defendant is not entitled to the qualified immunity defense because the law was clearly established that the Federal Wiretap Act preempted state law. … While these authorities provide some interesting insight, they are not relevant for purposes of determining qualified immunity as to whether the law was clearly established in this circuit with respect to the defendant’s

Knussman v. State of Maryland

272 F.3d 625 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 7, 2001

Public officials “are protected by qualified immunity when performing their duties within the scope of their employment insofar as their conduct does not breach ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”