Case law

Reiner v. Dandurand

33 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 16, 2014

“[G]overnmental actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … James did not do so; thus, the Officers’ decision to pull James over for a traffic violation is also not a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. 3 Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

274 Conn. 533 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Jul 26, 2005

Because any immunity accorded to attorneys appointed pursuant to § 46b-54 would be derived from *540 judicial immunity, we first examine the policy reasons underlying judicial immunity. 6 It is well established that “a judge … Absolute immunity would not be available, however, when persons who would normally be accorded immunity “perform acts which are clearly outside the scope of their jurisdiction.” Cok v.

Hunt v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of New Mex.

338 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 6, 2018

Clearly Established Law Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate *1260 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. … Thus, they cannot be used to demonstrate "clearly established law" within the meaning of a qualified immunity analysis.

Sutherland v. Mizer

625 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 6, 2008

Inasmuch as he is the party who has the responsibility of challenging the qualified immunity defense, Sutherland has not sufficiently pled a violation of a clearly established right. … Because Sutherland has not sufficiently alleged the violation of a clearly established right, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Count V.

Smith v. Wolfe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2020

State officials - 18 - have qualified immunity from claims for monetary relief if their conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable … As to the question of whether the right at issue was clearly established when the Defendants’ conduct took place, courts should not “define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Id. at 716.

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.”

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard Qualified immunity protects government officials “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … A court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

Thomson v. Salt Lake County

584 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 27, 2009

Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.2009). 2 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 816 (citing Anderson v. … An officer using force in the course of a seizure of a citizen is entitled to qualified immunity unless the level of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

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.

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Preston

472 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 30, 2007

third prongs [of the qualified immunity test].” 469 F.3d at 168. … The plaintiff argues that the defendants were on notice that their strip search policy violated clearly established law because “closely analogous cases” clearly established that policies permitting strip searches conducted

Colon-Andino v. Toledo-Davila

634 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 13, 2009

“In administering the [Supreme] Court’s test, this circuit has tended to list separately the two sub-parts of the ‘clearly established’ prong along with the first prong and, as a result, has articulated the qualified immunity … Defendants offer what is clearly a template ("boiler plate”) summary of the law on qualified immunity that is outdated- and fails to apply the qualified immunity analysis to the facts of this case adequately.

Hines v. Proper

442 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2006

Qualified immunity extends to a government official if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.”

Haldeman v. Total Petroleum, Inc.

376 N.W.2d 98 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 16, 1985

If the immunity provided by it were intended to be only a qualified one, we believe the legislature would have added words to so indicate. … It was error on the part of the trial court to submit the issue as a qualified privilege. It should have dismissed Haldeman’s libel claim against Total based upon statutory immunity. III. The Qualified Privilege.

Shaw v. Oconee County, Ga.

863 F. Supp. 1578 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified Immunity The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted an objective-reasonableness test for determining whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. See Courson v. … Under this analysis, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the law was not clearly established, or (2) the law was clearly established but the defendant did not violate the law. Id. n. 14.

Jubilee v. Horn

975 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 22, 1997

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Harlow v. … The Court later clarified this objective test by explaining that “to defeat qualified immunity it is not sufficient that the right at issue be clearly established as a general matter.

Fitzpatrick v. Meyer

809 F. Supp. 1299 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 1992

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he shows in light of clearly established principles that he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful. … The Defendants assert that qualified immunity is proper because “Cribett’s actions and those of his superior Mackey and his employer MRDD did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which Defendant

Piazza v. Mayne

23 F. Supp. 2d 658 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Oct 29, 1998

Mayne moves for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. … Qualified Immunity 1. Although Mayne enjoys no Eleventh Anendment protection, he is insulated by the qualified immunity doctrine.

Robert Painter v. Bill Robertson Robert Tush

185 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

On review, the plaintiff has contended that qualified immunity was unavailable to the defendants because clearly established federal law directed that law enforcement authorities may not frisk a citizen for weapons purportedly … Accordingly, any “objectively reasonable” action by a state officer, as assessed in the light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct at issue, will be insulated by qualified immunity. Id.

Hatheway v. Thies

335 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 18, 2003

In arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the detectives contend that (1) the law was not clearly established as to whether Mr. … Denial of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is available to government officials when “their -11- conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Locurto v. Safir

264 F.3d 154 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 27, 2001

Defendants further asserted they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … In such a case, the qualified immunity doctrine focuses only on whether the government official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law, without regard for possible subjective malice.