Case law

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.

Transit Authority of River City v. Bibelhauser

432 S.W.3d 171 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Sep 27, 2013

Governmental immunity is granted to agencies that have been established by an immune entity and that perform a “ ‘function integral to state government.’ ” Comair, Inc. v. … First, the court is to examine the origin, or “parent,” of the entity to determine if the entity is an agency (or alter ego) of a clearly immune parent. Id.

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.

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.

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.

Greenberg v. Kmetko

840 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 9, 1988

The defendants submit on appeal that they should be shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … A fortiori, constitutional protection for such expressions was not clearly established in 1976.

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.

Hertog v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 265 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

State, 127 Wn.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), that the qualified personal immunity for parole officers recognized in Taggart does not extend to the State. … If so, Hoover would enjoy qualified personal immunity but the City would not.

Scott R. Rushing v. Estate of Ernest R. Mincey

599 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

“[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … 3 were clearly established at the time the officer acted.”

Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming

495 Mich. 1 · Michigan Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2014

Among them is § 4(a) of the MMMA, which immunizes registered qualifying patients from “penalty in any manner” for specified MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. MCL 333.26424(a). … The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use.

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

Brown v. Grove

647 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 16, 2009

Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Defense Is Denied Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established federal … To be protected under qualified immunity, a government employee must show that the right the plaintiff complains of was not clearly established at the time the defendants acted or, assuming that it was clearly established

Mary Estep v. Police Officer Mackey

639 F. App'x 870 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 12, 2016

This “collateral-order doctrine” allows us to review certain orders that deny a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere … 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

In Re COVID-Related Restrictions on Religious Services

Superior Court of Delaware · Aug 28, 2023

“[E]ven where the law is clearly established and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense may still shield officials from liability.84 “[I]f it was objectively … clearly established right.

Rockwood v. Shoen

145 F. Supp. 3d 718 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 6, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on this claim on the ground of qualified immunity. … Courts generally use a two-step analysis to address the potential applicability of qualified immunity.

John Griswold v. Trinity Health Michigan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 11, 2026

“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. … But it was not clearly established that the circumstances leading to his death satisfied the objective prong of the Farmer test. The jail officials therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ramirez v. City of Buena Park

560 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Under Saucier’s second prong, we ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants first contend that Officer Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Westfahl’s excessive-force claim. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff” shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’