Case law

Gurski v. State Police Dept.

242 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1990

action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. … Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.

Williams v. Kaufman County

86 F. Supp. 2d 586 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 7, 2000

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … Before this standard, the parameters of this right were not clearly established or defined. Since these parameters were not clearly defined in April 1995, Sheriff Harris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

897 F.3d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 27, 2018

The officers could not benefit from qualified immunity, because at the time of the incident, case law had clearly established that the officers’ entry was unlawful. Mendez v. … The law on all these points was clearly established at the time, so the officers could not obtain qualified immunity for their unlawful search. Id. at 1191.

Michael Chrestman v. Metro Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

That this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage complicates our analysis of the clearly established prong of the officers’ qualified-immunity defense. … There, we explained that “dismissing for qualified immunity” on the clearly established prong “is sometimes difficult because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery

Robinson v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

334 Ga. App. 746 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 23, 2015

Qualified immunity gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established … Whether qualified immunity protects an official from suit is a question of law.

Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Corp.

295 S.W.3d 91 · Kentucky Supreme Court · Oct 1, 2009

Despite the frequency of opinions on the subject from this Court, the law of sovereign immunity, and the related doctrines of governmental immunity, official immunity, and qualified official immunity, is still difficult to … Under this test, the Court concluded, “our constitutional fathers would not view this activity as qualifying for sovereign immunity.” Id.

Nolin v. Isbell

207 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

In this case, like Sheth , Appellant accepts Appellee’s version of the events and argues those facts do not demonstrate a violation of clearly established law. 1 This Court conducts a de novo review of qualified immunity … Qualified immunity protects from civil liability government officials who perform discretionary functions if the conduct of the officials does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

J.M.R. v. County of Talladega

686 So. 2d 209 · Supreme Court of Alabama · Nov 27, 1996

. § 1983 , the defendants raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Under the qualified immunity defense to § 1983 actions, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

olsen v. barre

Vermont Superior Court · Mar 1, 2024

Qualified official immunity The Town argues that, regardless whether Mr. Frey may have operated his cruiser negligently, his conduct is protected by qualified official immunity. … The Vermont Supreme Court appears to have clearly ruled that police officers responding to emergency calls are, by statute, not entitled to qualified immunity, and are potentially liable for recklessness, though not negligence

Ferris v. County of Kennebec

44 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 1999

Failure to State a Claim and Qualified Immunity 1. … Qualified Immunity Sprowl’s contention that her, liability is precluded by qualified immunity is similarly unpersuasive.

Williams v. ONTARIO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.

662 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2009

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officials who perform discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable prison … to qualified immunity.

Green v. Henley

727 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 13, 1989

immunity. … Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the basis of qualified immunity is appropriate as well.

Transcare Maryland, Inc. v. Murray

431 Md. 225 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 22, 2013

The County noted that, while the firefighter was clearly immune under the Good Samaritan Act, “[t]he volunteer fire department, however, is a private nonprofit corporation which does not appear to have the statutory immunity … Act, regardless of whether the company’s employee may qualify for immunity under the statute.

Kjellsen v. Mills

517 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2008

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity protects public employees performing discretionary functions1 from the burdens of civil trials and from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … right was “clearly established” on the date of the alleged violation.

Margaret Cowan, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria Cooper v. Michael Breen, Town of North Branford, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellant

352 F.3d 756 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 18, 2003

If the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry ends and the plaintiff may not recover. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … Was the law clearly established? Breen, relying on County of Sacramento v.

Villarreal v. City of Laredo

94 F.4th 374 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 23, 2024

Under the normal standards of qualified immunity, no “clearly established law” placed the officers on notice of Villarreal’s First Amendment right not to be arrested. … Even those who argue for some version of qualified immunity nevertheless disavow the clearly-established- law requirement. See, e.g., Scott Keller, Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law, 73 Stan. L.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

816 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2016

The officers were not “plainly incompetent” and did not “knowingly violate” clearly established law when they made these arrests. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if clearly established law can simply be defined” at a high level of generality. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. at 1776, slip op. at 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Elmer J. Lappe v. Paul Loeffelholz, Dr. Wiedershine and Harlem Brady

815 F.2d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 25, 1987

Keeping in mind that we are deciding the issue of the officials’ qualified immunity, and that our focus is on the question of whether Lappe’s rights were clearly established, we reject Lappe’s argument. … Loeffelholz violated Lappe’s clearly established federal constitutional rights and is not entitled to immunity.

Williams v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV.

763 N.W.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of Minnesota · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Maturi, as a government official, receives the protections of qualified immunity when performing dis *655 cretionary functions unless he could reasonably be expected to recognize that his conduct would violate clearly established

Jane Doe v. Gayle Bowles Richard Kemp Ronald Stratton

254 F.3d 617 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 19, 2001

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order for a court to deny qualified immunity to a § 1983 defendant, the plaintiff “must establish that [defendant’s] conduct violated a federal right so clearly established that any … Provided that there are no disputed issues of material fact precluding jurisdiction, qualified immunity must be granted by this court if, as a matter of law, defendants’ conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional