Case law

Katz v. Molic

727 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1989

The grant of qualified immunity, then, turns upon whether there was a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendants knew or should have known at the time, a question of law which may be addressed by a motion … The Second Circuit held that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of qualified immunity because a reasonable state official would not have known that this conduct violated Neu’s “clearly established statutory

Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

699 F. Supp. 1270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 31, 1988

immunity from money damages unless the conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitu *1274 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v. … To double back a bit, what the earlier analysis established was that such allegations — even though accepted as true — do not divest the individuals of qualified immunity.

Navarro v. City of Riviera Beach

192 F. Supp. 3d 1353 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 29, 2016

qualified immunity should not apply because: (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.” … Even to the extent that facts exist capable of demonstrating a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and, thus, overcoming qualified immunity as to Sheriff Bradshaw in his individual capacity, amendment

Estevis v. Cantu

134 F.4th 793 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 16, 2025

We reverse and render judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for all shots fired. … In any event, Estevis bore the burden to negate qualified immunity by showing shots 4–9 violated clearly established law. See King v.

Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District

964 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 1997

Analysis of Qualified Immunity Defense 1. Whether the Law at the Time of Guzman’s Alleged Acts and Omissions Was Clearly Established a. … The investigator asserted a qualified immunity defense, maintaining that the law did not clearly establish that his actions violated Eastwood’s right to privacy.

DeMayo v. Nugent

517 F.3d 11 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 22, 2008

grounds of qualified immunity. … Law enforcement officers may not violate constitutional rights, then expect qualified immunity when a court refuses to craft an unprecedented exception to a clearly established rule of law.

Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.

722 F. Supp. 687 · District Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 2, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY As officials performing discretionary functions, the defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity from this lawsuit. Harlow v. … The plaintiff merely asserts that under Harlow , the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law or arrested

Roman Melendez v. Inclan

641 F. Supp. 998 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 9, 1986

immunity test requires a two part analysis: 1) whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right "clearly established" at the time of the violation, and 2) whether the government official asserting the qualified … In the present case, defendant makes no argument in support of his claim for a qualified immunity that the law prohibiting patronage dismissals was not clearly established.

McMorrow v. Little

109 F.3d 432 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 17, 1997

On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and that MeMorrow’s claim must be dismissed. … Again we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.

Allan F. Archer, Jr. v. Gilbert Sanchez

933 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 1, 1991

Anderson then guides our inquiry into whether qualified immunity shields Mr. … While the court must decide whether the law in question was clearly established, Meade v.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin

504 N.W.2d 220 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Jul 27, 1993

Appellants first contend that they are immune from suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) under the doctrine of qualified immunity. We agree. … Consequently, under the undisputed facts of this case respondents did not have a clearly established right to procedural due process. B.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

551 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 2009

established to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense must wait until a factual record has been developed. … established for purposes of qualified immunity before a factual record had been developed.

James Meyer v. Lana J. Robinson, Individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lawrence

992 F.2d 734 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 6, 1993

The court adopted the following rule: “The question determining the existence of qualified immunity is whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendants’ actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law … Under the Harlow standard, qualified immunity should be granted when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Vincson Herren and Woody Eugene Herren v. E.J. Bowyer, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Georgia

850 F.2d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1988

Public officials performing discretionary functions 5 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a grant of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” 841 F.2d at 1565 ; accord Webb v.

Jackson v. Long

102 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 1996

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was `clearly established.'" … This contention raises the legal questions of whether Sheriff Long violated any clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiffs in responding to the inmate's complaint against them and, if the law clearly established

Kellough v. Bertrand

22 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 25, 1998

Qualified Immunity Bars Plaintiff’s Claim of Excessive Force Established law clearly provides that Plaintiff has a Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force by police. … Plaintiffs Claim of Unlawful Arrest is not Barred by Qualified Immunity An individual has a clearly established right to be free from unlawful arrest. Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1992).

Mosher Ex Rel. Estate of Mosher v. Nelson

589 F.3d 488 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Dec 17, 2009

was 'clearly established' at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation." … Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Rozek v. Topolnicki

865 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 12, 1989

The court held that defendants Reisdorff and Liddle were entitled to qualified immunity because they were working under Topolnicki's direction, and that Rozek had not shown they had violated any clearly established constitutional … We need not reach the question of whether defendant Topolnicki was entitled to summary judgment on the defense of prosecutorial immunity for all of his actions, because the record clearly reflects his entitlement to qualified

Madonna Sterling, of the Estate of Marcus Anthony Wayman v. Borough of Minersville F. Scott Wilinsky, Police Officer Thomas Hoban, Police Officer Joseph Wilinsky, Police Chief, Individually and as Police Officers for the Borough of Minersville Officer F. Scott Wilinsky and Officer Thomas Hoban

232 F.3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 14, 2000

The court further ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated Wayman's clearly established right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. 7 Officers Hoban and Wilinsky … II. 8 We have previously set forth the analytical framework for deciding qualified immunity claims. First, we must determine if the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Parsons v. Pond

126 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 24, 2000

In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was … In the event that this threshold determination reveals a possible constitutional violation, [a] qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was