Case law

Richard Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State

737 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 17, 2013

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity "from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … DeKalb Cnty., 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir. 1995) (reversing denial of qualified immunity on equal-protection retaliation claim because there is "no clearly established right . . . under the equal protection clause to be free

Mollan v. Lindner

544 Pa. 487 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1996

This Court made clear in Montgomery that, absent statutory classification, the parameters establishing “high public official” status would be delineated by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing a … Exercising significant policy-making functions as the most important public official in the Borough of Yeadon, Appellee clearly qualifies as a “high public official” under the criteria established in Montgomery .

Keil v. Triveline

661 F.3d 981 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2011

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil lawsuits when their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … To determine whether the agents are entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to Keil, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and

Vega-Santiago v. Ortiz-Velez

405 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 2005

Saucier outlines the two steps of the qualified immunity analysis: (1) if a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether the right was clearly established. … In short, to set aside the buckler of qualified immunity ‘the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.’

Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

308 F.3d 523 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2002

Pursuant to this doctrine, federal appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals concerning “the legal question of qualified immunity, i.e., whether a given set of facts violates clearly established law … Instead, Kiefer properly limits his appeal to “neat abstract issues of law” relating to qualified immunity — i.e., whether the facts alleged by the plaintiffs demonstrate a violation of clearly established law.

Carrubba v. Moskowitz

81 Conn. App. 382 · Connecticut Appellate Court · Feb 3, 2004

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Qualified immunity typically “turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action . . . assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken . . . .”

Bennett v. Vidal

267 F. Supp. 3d 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such- as arrests, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Officer Vidal moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution based on qualified immunity.

Muhammad v. Close

798 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 8, 2011

Qualified immunity The defendant first raised the issue of qualified immunity in its supplemental brief in this Court after the latest remand. In English v. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government actors performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when them conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Clay v. Woodbury County

982 F. Supp. 2d 904 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 6, 2013

Clay’s reliance on a “generalized right” to be free from an unreasonable search is not sufficient to “clearly establish” the specific right on which her claim hangs for purposes of “qualified immunity.” … Turning to the second prong of the “qualified immunity” analysis, whether the right was “clearly established,” see Burton, 731 F.3d at 791-92 , the decisions in Hicks v.

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)

227 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2017

Defendant also stresses that sovereign immunity is a well-established defense to ADA claims in federal courts, and that plaintiff could have pursued both the LAD and ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations … Burdette Tomlin Mem’l Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006)). 5 *500 To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability

Thomas v. Harrisburg City Police Department

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 15, 2021

for purposes of qualified immunity.” … a defendant’s conduct at issue did not violate a “clearly established” right.

Savage v. Westcott

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 2025

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless “(1) the plaintiff alleged a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation.” 8 “We may address … To survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, Savage must show both that the Defendants’ actions violated his right to due process and that this right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ actions

Owens v. Zade

District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 20, 2023

6 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Zade in her individual capacity at trial if he can demonstrate that the right at issue is clearly established. See [Doc. 37 at 12–13 (invoking qualified immunity)].

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

Rapkin v. Rocque

228 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 22, 2002

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *146 would have known.” … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Eyring v. Fort Sanders Parkwest Medical Center, Inc.

991 S.W.2d 230 · Tennessee Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1999

Eyring argues the lower courts erred in applying the Peer Review Law to grant Parkwest qualified immunity from liability for damages because the plain language of the statute provides no explicit immunity to “hospitals, … Section -219(c)(1) grants qualified immunity to “institutions . . . and associated committees as identified in subsection (b).” Id.

Maria Castro v. United States of America, Don Abrams, Jason Davs, Daniel Bologna

34 F.3d 106 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 2, 1994

Defendants assert that they have qualified immunity because officials performing discretionary functions are immune from suit for damages unless the conduct in question violates clearly estab *110 lished statutory or constitutional … Though a mere mistake in the performance of an official duty may not deprive the officer of qualified immunity, that doctrine does not shield performance that either (a) was in violation of clearly established law, or (b)

Braham v. Newbould

Connecticut Appellate Court · Oct 6, 2015

‘‘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 … ‘‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’’ Brooks v. Sweeney, supra, 299 Conn. 217.

Santiago v. Fields

170 F. Supp. 2d 453 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 17, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that they cannot be held liable in their individual capacities under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Also, at the time of the events at issue, plaintiffs Eighth Amendment right against excessive force was clearly established.

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.