Case law

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Jan 17, 2001

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Powell v. Fugate

364 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 8, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The qualified immunity inquiry is twofold, requiring assessment of "(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was 'clearly established

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2021

Even if the Court concluded that Officer Gaton’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity so long as the use force did not violate “clearly established” law. … a “clearly established” right.

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

Allah v. Juchenwioz

176 F. App'x 187 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

which the Court found to exist in its 1999 decision was not clearly established at the relevant time.” … “In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Keefer v. Durkos

371 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2005

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for all of the allegations of the Complaint. Defendants’ Brief, p. 19. … Therefore, the Plaintiff possessed a clearly established right to procedural due process in her termination by virtue of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. Qualified immunity is denied as to Count II. .

KRL v. Moore

384 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 27, 2004

However, a prosecutor can still perform “police investiga-five work” after probable cause has been established, for which only qualified immunity would apply. … If yes, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

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.

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.

Haley v. City of Boston

657 F.3d 39 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Sep 19, 2011

If "it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established," a court may grant the requested immunity without undertaking the "essentially academic exercise" of ascertaining whether … The upshot, then, is that, by 1972, the relevant right was clearly established.

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

Brown v. ONTARIO COUNTY

787 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 27, 2011

Nevertheless, I find that even if probable cause was lacking or questionable, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials from an action for civil damages, to the extent that their challenged acts do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

L.S.T., Inc. v. Crow

49 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 1995

If the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the public official is entitled to summary judgment. … This means, in the context of a motion based on qualified immunity, that the plaintiff must show “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant’s conduct as being violative of the clearly established law

Joseph Williams v. City of Sparks

112 F.4th 635 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … A municipality is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. See id.

Kaczorowski v. Town of North Smithfield

974 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 1, 2013

) if so, whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” … Kaczorowski’s claimed right to employment was clearly established. However, even an affirmative answer to that question may still not be enough to overcome qualified immunity. The First Circuit in Diaz-Bigio v.

Costanich v. Department of Social & Health Services

627 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

clearly established. 1. … immunity, this right had not previously been clearly established in the civil context. 13 A right is “clearly established” when “the contours of the right were already delineated with sufficient clarity to make a reasonable

Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission

573 F. App'x 370 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 19, 2014

To evaluate a qualified immunity defense the court must inquire: “(1) whether the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonably in light of clearly … Salinas has not shown that any defendant violated his constitutional rights or clearly established law.

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.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis

596 F.3d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects the officers from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a county employee may be held personally liable for a constitutional violation only if his own conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.