Case law

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.

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.

Kollaritsch v. Mich. State Univ. Bd. of Trs.

298 F. Supp. 3d 1089 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 2, 2017

Defendant Maybank is not entitled to qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim brought by Gross. Plaintiffs have established that the relevant rights were clearly established by 2012. … Because the law was clearly established at the time, Defendant Maybank's request for qualified immunity for the Equal Protection claim is denied.

Baker v. Clover

177 Ariz. 37 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · May 25, 1993

Civil rights liability is, however, circumscribed by qualified immunity. … of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken____” Anderson v.

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

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.

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.

Billingsley v. St. Louis County

70 F.3d 61 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 14, 1995

It held that government officials are generally immune from suit in performing discretionary duties if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … have a clearly established right to be free from patronage dismissals.

Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department

962 F.2d 1563 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

The court concluded in Ansley that “[t]he Supreme Court’s qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law … ’ conduct violated that clearly established law?

Denning v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

564 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 16, 2008

Once the qualified immunity defense is raised by the defendant, it becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Untalan v. … The second question in determining the applicability of qualified immunity — whether Denning had a clearly established constitutional right not to be fired upon — is therefore moot.

Jiron v. City of Lakewood

392 F.3d 410 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Dec 20, 2004

Having found no violation of a constitutional or statutory right, we need not address whether any such right was “clearly established.” … However, when a finding of qualified immunity is based on a conclusion that the officer has committed no constitutional violation – i.e., the first step of the qualified immunity analysis – a finding of qualified immunity

Walentas v. Lipper

862 F.2d 414 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 25, 1988

Qualified Immunity. Walentas claims that the district incorrectly applied the standard of qualified immunity in concluding that Lipper was entitled to such immunity. Walentas v. … Thus, since the legal proposition argued by Wal-entas was not clearly established at the relevant time, Lipper’s conduct was protected by qualified immunity.

Singleton v. Cannizzaro

372 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Feb 28, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged *411 conduct." 71 " … immunity from such claims because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if it did, the Defendants did not violate a "clearly established" right.

Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich

408 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

However, the law of qualified immunity does not require a plaintiff to produce a case that is "directly on point" in order to show that a right is clearly established. Nabozny v. … Kiddy-Brown has alleged sufficient facts to meet the first part of the qualified immunity inquiry. 2. 36 We now turn to the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the law was clearly established when Ms.

West v. City of Parsons

983 F. Supp. 1027 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 31, 1997

Qualified Immunity Defendants Dunning, Gofourth, Rask, and Steenrod all claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claims resulting from the search of his apartment. … Further, Gofourth and Steenrod claim qualified immunity as to plaintiffs excessive force claims.