Case law

Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego

708 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officers “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 known … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we ask, in the order we choose, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a right and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Stucchio v. Tincher

726 So. 2d 372 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Feb 5, 1999

Clearly this testimony is absolutely privileged. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992). Suppose the information was divulged not in court but in a pretrial deposition. … Clearly, the law before Fridovich established an absolute privilege for a statement made "that had some relation" to a judicial proceeding.

State v. Jett

316 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 31, 1989

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-17 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (Attorney General qualified immunity); Nixon v. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent it turns on an issue of law); Nixon v.

Estate of George Ex Rel. George v. Michigan

136 F. Supp. 2d 695 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 8, 2001

If no constitutional violation occurred, Defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

State of Arizona v. Justin James Chase

232 Ariz. 265 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 17, 2013

“If the existence of immunity turns on disputed factual issues, the jury determines the facts and the court then determines whether those facts are sufficient to establish immunity.” Chamberlain v. … Should the defendant fail to establish immunity, the state, of course, still must prove all elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Cassiopia Rhoads v. Erik Riddell

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 2, 2026

Thus, if the violation of the Eighth Amendment standard was clearly established in 2019, then Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Mays v. … Because it was clearly established that the Constitution required Defendants to do something, the Court correctly affirms the denial of qualified immunity.

Odom v. Wayne County

482 Mich. 459 · Michigan Supreme Court · Dec 30, 2008

Contrary to defendant’s position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. … Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice.

Jules Gassner v. City of Garland, Texas, M.L. Bates

864 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Mar 7, 1989

The court defined this form of qualified immunity as follows: [Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Hence, the Court offered the following refinement of the Harlow qualified immunity test: [O]ur cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized

James King v. United States

917 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … If a jury were to credit Plaintiff's testimony, then neither Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because any reasonable officer would have known, based on clearly established law, that applying force-tackling Plaintiff

Melanie Kelsay v. Matt Ernst

905 F.3d 1081 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Sep 27, 2018

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. … The district court rejected Ernst's defense of qualified immunity.

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “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 .

Mitchell v. Luckenbill

680 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2010

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Roberts v. Lapp

297 F. App'x 67 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Oct 28, 2008

Parole officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they perform their non-judicial and non-prosecutorial tasks, provided that they do not violate clearly established constitutional norms of which an objectively reasonable … Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Torrez v. El Paso County Sheriff's Department

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 2021

and qualified immunity is appropriate). … July 22, 2021), the Court engaged in an extremely thorough examination of precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ultimately finding

Elkins v. Summit County, Ohio

615 F.3d 671 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity In evaluating qualified immunity claims, we “[f]irst . . . determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established … immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law.’”

Archibald v. Timmons

2005 DNH 129 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 13, 2005

If the asserted constitutional right was clearly established, the court then decides "whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated the clearly established … "An officer is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct is objectively reasonable based on the information available at the time and in light of clearly established law." Pena-Borrero v.

Barbera v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 386 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 1987

Plaintiff’s claims may be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity if defendants show that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Unless plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, defendants pleading qualified immunity, as Martin and Schlessinger do here, are entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Martinez v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety

47 F. App'x 513 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 29, 2002

Consistent with that ruling, the court denied qualified immunity to Trooper Boyd on the excessive use of force claim. … “For the law to be clearly established, there must be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must be as plaintiff maintains.”

Burhans v. Lopez

24 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2014

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” DiStiso v. … Finally, Silver asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity under state and city law.

Samantha Vazquez v. County of Kern

949 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jan 31, 2020

The panel held that the Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity “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.