Case law

Cunningham v. Snyder

472 F. Supp. 2d 1023 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 19, 2006

To defeat a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, ... the law … See Greenberg, 840 F.2d at 472 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ) (observing that the principle underlying the doctrine of qualified immunity is that “[i]f the law at the time was not clearly established,

Shekleton v. Eichenberger

677 F.3d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 3, 2012

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability in a section 1983 case “unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” … clearly established constitutional violation.

Ringuette v. City of Fall River

146 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 5, 1998

Mass. 1995), but several claims were reserved for trial, and the issue of qualified immunity was not resolved. … violated clearly established law.

KEMP EX REL. WRIGHT v. State, County of Burlington

147 N.J. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 14, 1997

N.J.S.A. 26:11-12, however, establishes a generalized grant of qualified immunity to county boards and their agents “for any act ” performed “in good faith and with ordinary discretion.” … We conclude that N.J.S.A. 26:ll-12’s grant of only qualified immunity for discretionary acts is clearly inconsistent with the TCA’s general discretionary immunity provisions which provide for absolute immunity in that context

Murphy v. Carroll

202 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 10, 2002

To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, this court follows a two-step analysis. … “Clearly established,” for pin-poses of qualified immunity analysis, means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Jackson v. Brown

134 F. Supp. 3d 1237 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2015

Accordingly, the Court skips the first step of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis. b. Defendants Did Not Violate Clearly Established Law. … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to determine whether the allegedly violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time that Defendants allegedly violated that right.

Amore v. Novarro

610 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The district court concluded that Novarro was not entitled to qualified immunity: Amore had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest, and it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Whether the “objectively reasonable” inquiry is framed as part of the “clearly established” inquiry, or apart from it, does not affect the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis here. 9 *163 III.

Cook v. City of Groton

952 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 6, 1997

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time. … Because the contours of the right on which the plaintiff relies were not clearly established at the pertinent time, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 3.

Bruner v. Cassidy

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jan 8, 2026

Clearly established that it was unreasonable Even if their conduct is deemed unreasonable in the instant case, officers are still entitled to qualified immunity if the law did not clearly establish that the conduct … This use of force was excessive, and the law clearly established it was a constitutional violation at the time, meaning the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

813 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

A circuit split will not satisfy the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. But even if we were persuaded by Tobey, Mocek has made no compelling argument as to why its logic should apply here. … Jurisdiction 10 Although qualified immunity shields municipal employees where the law is not clearly established, this defense does not apply to municipalities themselves. Cordova v.

Felix E. Capoeman v. Amos Reed

754 F.2d 1512 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 22, 1985

Qualified Immunity Even defendants who violate constitutional rights enjoy a qualified immunity that protects them from liability for damages “unless it is further demonstrated that their conduct was unreasonable under the … Nonetheless, we found that the basic fourth amendment rights of students had been sufficiently clearly established at the time to prevent the defendants’ immunity. Id.

Sadallah v. City Of Utica

383 F.3d 34 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 3, 2004

defendant's action was objective[ly] legal [ly] reasonable[ ] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken. 10 X-Men Sec., Inc. v. … Accordingly, Hanna is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Austin v. City of Pasadena

74 F.4th 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 18, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). … The test for qualified immunity involves two steps: “first we ask whether the officer’s alleged conduct has violated a federal right; . . . second we ask whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at

Sarah Molina v. Daniel Book

59 F.4th 334 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 2, 2023

In the face of a summary-judgment motion seeking qualified immunity, the district court ruled that the claims could proceed to a jury. … It could not have clearly established a First Amendment right to wear the bright green hats.

Jones v. Lieber

579 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Gardner v. Howard

109 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 12, 1997

Defendants appeal the qualified immunity portion of that ruling. … II. 8 Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 damage liability unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Potera-Haskins v. Gamble

519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 · District Court, D. Montana · Sep 28, 2007

This examination, in turn, invokes the Court’s obligation to address and resolve the threshold issue of Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. 6 Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is ‘an entitlement not to stand trial … Finally, “[i]f the law did not put the [employer] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

CLIFT BY CLIFT v. Fincannon

657 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 13, 1987

The resolution, then, of the qualified immunity defenses raised by these individually named Defendants turns initially on whether the law was clearly established at the time the action in question occurred. 13 *1545 Thus, … There being no clearly established federal right to habilitation in the least restrictive alternative setting, the individual Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity must prevail in that regard.

State v. Jones

416 S.C. 283 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · May 18, 2016

In a pretrial motion, Jones asserted immunity from prosecution under the "Protection of Persons and Property Act" (the Act).1 Following a hearing, the circuit court judge granted the motion, finding Jones established by … Conclusion We conclude the circuit court judge properly granted Jones immunity from prosecution pursuant to section 16-11-440(C) because Jones's residence qualified as "another place" where she had the right to be

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

254 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

established right had occurred and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official's] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”