Case law

Brady v. Dill

24 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 16, 1998

Qualified Immunity There are two parts to any qualified immunity analysis. First, it must be determined whether the right asserted by the plaintiffs was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. … The reason cited was that “the focus in the usual Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis is not whether it is 'clearly established' that an unreasonable search and seizure would violate the Constitution but rather whether

Daniel J. Leveto v. Robert A. Lapina

258 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 17, 2001

B. 11 The principles governing claims of qualified immunity are well-established. … See Brown, 922 F.2d at 1118-19 (recognizing that the clearly established requirement "may produce distressing results," but finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity).

Tavarez-Guerrero v. Toledo-Davila

573 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 16, 2008

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim shall not be dismissed. 5) Qualified Immunity We will now discuss whether the doctrine of qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claims against Toledo and Marvin. … Since the answer to all three prongs of qualified immunity test is in the affirmative, the Court finds that Plaintiff has overcome the qualified immunity defense raised by Toledo and Marvin. 6) Supervisor Liability Toledo

Leon Washington and Clara Washington v. James Haupert, Joel Slygh and Fred Rogers

481 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2007

Governmental actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If the right was clearly established, the government actor is not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure.

White v. Gurnon

67 Mass. App. Ct. 622 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 30, 2006

Was the right clearly established!? … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from monetary liability in their personal capacity provided the official’s conduct did not violate an individual’s rights that were “clearly established” under

Prescott v. City of Meriden

80 Conn. App. 697 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Dec 30, 2003

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. … “The doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal employees are well established.

Russell v. Scott

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Mar 19, 2026

The District Court concluded that Scott had not established his entitlement to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that his actions violated Russell’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights … Clearly Established Finally, we turn to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether it was clearly established at the time of the incident that Scott’s conduct 12 We further note that,

Patrick v. Lewis

397 F. Supp. 2d 1134 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 28, 2005

Defendants argue that Officers Lewis and Wilson are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the seizure and booking of Patrick because their conduct was reasonable and there is no clearly established right to forced … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs had satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test, they would be unable to satisfy the “clearly established” prong. Cf. Davis v.

Freeman, Dianna v. Johnson, Caleb

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 23, 2023

Generally, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows not only that the defendant violated his rights, but also that his rights were clearly established at the relevant time. … Because it is clearly established that probable cause cannot rest solely on a person’s presence at a suspected crime scene, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim for the purpose of defendants

Eldridge v. Morrison

970 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 4, 1996

Under this test, public official performing discretionary functions which would objectively appear to be within the official’s authority have qualified immunity if their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established … The Eleventh Circuit has explained that [f]or the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context

Torian v. City of Beckley

963 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · May 7, 1997

Defendant Sweeney clearly is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in regard to the federal constitutional claim. … Law enforcement officers are immune from § 1983 liability arising from official discretionary acts that do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Jeffrey M. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka William Roth Kevin Anderson Dennis Warosh

365 F.3d 590 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 27, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity,' state actors are protected from civil liability when “their conduct does not violate' clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The qualified immunity inquiry is a two-step process.

Catletti ex rel. Estate of Catletti v. Rampe

334 F.3d 225 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 2, 2003

The district court denied the motion, holding that defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is defeated by the clearly established constitutional right to testify at a trial. See Catletti v. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity when his or her conduct “did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Hope v.

Coffin v. Brandau

597 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

Drawing on that precedent, we analyze whether the Deputies violated the Coffins’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and conclude that because they did not, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. … Coffin made clear her intention to shut the garage door. 15 Therefore, we conclude that their “conduct was not so clearly established as to justify stripping [them] of qualified immunity.” McClish, 483 F.3d at 1249 .

Closs v. Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District

874 S.W.2d 859 · Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) · Apr 12, 1994

Government officials enjoy qualified good faith immunity from liability if their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … of their due process rights. *874 As for the individual school district appellees, they are entitled to qualified good faith immunity when performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not violate clearly established

John D. Stough v. Walter J. Gallagher

967 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1992

Stough also contends that Sheriff Gallagher’s actions violated clearly established due process law. V.DISCUSSION A. Qualified Immunity and the First Amendment The Supreme Court held in Harlow v. … ’s actions, and (2) whether the public official’s conduct violated that clearly established law.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia

166 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2016

immunity, “our case law does not clearly establish a right to videotape police officers performing their official duties.” … Affirming the district court and rejecting officers’ claim of qualified immunity, the court of appeals held qualified immunity did not apply to officers because it was clearly established, "gathering information about government

Bailey v. Ramos

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 10, 2025

immunity because the unlawfulness of his conduct was not clearly established at the time it occurred. 54 Bailey, for his part, submits that the unlawfulness of Ramos’s takedown procedure was clearly established, … “[T]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff’s version of th[e] disputed facts must also constitute a violation of clearly established law.” Joseph, 981 F.3d at 330 (emphasis added).

Lisa Amaechi v. Matthew West, and Bernard R. Pfluger Town of Dumfries

237 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

The district court denied West’s motion for summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity, reasoning that West’s search, as described by Amaechi, violated Amaechi’s clearly established constitutional rights … To that end, 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

Sisinia Pro v. Ronald Donatucci. Ronald Donatucci, Register of Wills

81 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 1996

As we summarized in In re City of Philadelphia Litig.: If the law is not established clearly when an official acts, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he ‘could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent … to qualified immunity.