Case law

Tittle v. Raines

231 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 29, 2002

Raines and Rooney contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity regarding Tittle’s claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy because they did not violate clearly established laws of which a reasonable … Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in fight of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be -a violation of the right at issue.

Doe v. Terry

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 28, 2023

Qualified immunity is “an affirmative defense shielding governmental officials from liability so long as their conduct does ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Additionally, because the law was clearly established at the time of Defendant’s actions, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Horn v. City of Seat Pleasant, Md.

57 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 20, 1999

Id. “ ‘If the right was not clearly established at the relevant time or if a reasonable [official] might not have known that his or her conduct violated that right, the [official] is entitled to immunity.’ ” Id. … Therefore the Eight Circuit in these cases did not address the issue of qualified immunity.

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 1995

is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. … “clearly established” law.

W.Va. Division of Natural Resources v. Steven Dawson and Angela Dawson

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2019

On appeal, the DNR and the DNR employees raise the following issues: (1) the circuit court erred by failing to find qualified immunity because (a) there is no evidence of a violation of any clearly established statutory … Accordingly, we will begin by reviewing this Court’s established qualified immunity principles.

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

Jonathan Davidson v. City of Stafford, Texas, et a

848 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 7, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … On the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, recent Supreme Court decisions addressing claims for excessive force have “reiterate[d] the longstanding principle that ‘clearly established law’ should not be defined

James E. Phillips, II v. WV DHHR d/b/a Mitchell Bateman Hospital

West Virginia Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

rights or laws that were clearly established and of which a reasonable person would have known or whether those actions were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. … The circuit court applied established jurisprudence from this Court in finding that the DHHR was entitled to qualified immunity.

Margaret Andrews v. Robert Fuoss, Individually and in His Capacity as Sheriff of Jones County, South Dakota

417 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 1, 2005

ANALYSIS On appeal, Andrews asserts that the district court erred in granting Sheriff Fuoss’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because Sheriff Fuoss’s actions violated her clearly established … State officers “are entitled to qualified immunity unless their alleged conduct violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions] would have known.’ ” McCoy

Nieves v. County of Monroe

761 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 25, 2011

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 … Specifically, the doctrine applies where it is “objectively reasonable” for an official to believe that his conduct did not violate a plaintiffs constitutional rights, in light of clearly established law and in the information

MacK v. Holcomb

446 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 2006

If plaintiff sufficiently alleges a constitutional violation, defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established when the violation occurred. Id. … Clearly Established Law The issue for purposes of qualified immunity is whether Mack’s First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Moore v. Winer

190 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 20, 2002

The Supreme Court has recognized that questions of qualified immunity should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation, *806 as the purpose of the doctrine of qualified immunity is to serve as a bar to suit, not … Having in mind the Supreme Court’s threshold tests for consideration of a qualified immunity claim, see Wilson v.

El Paso Independent School District, Dr. Lorenzo Garcia and Mark Mendoza v. Michael McIntyre and Laura McIntyre, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Children, K. M., L. M., C. M., M. M., and L. M.

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · Aug 6, 2014

and qualified immunity. … The test for qualified immunity requires the court to engage in a two part inquiry: (1) whether a public official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was “clearly established

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.

Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department

232 Cal. App. 4th 995 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2014

” (Hafer, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 29)) or “qualified immunity.” … Haugen (2004) 543 U.S. 194, 198–201 [160 L.Ed.2d 583, 125 S.Ct. 596] [officer who shot fleeing felon entitled to qualified immunity]; Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 203–209 [arresting officer entitled to qualified immunity

Plascencia v. City of St. George

705 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, D. Utah · Mar 9, 2010

Qualified immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … in which the court answers these questions is up to the court. 87 “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” 88 “Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity

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

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.

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.

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.