Case law

Gauthier v. Town of Dracut

19 Mass. L. Rptr. 579 · Massachusetts Superior Court · Jun 27, 2005

Qualified Immunity The defendants claim as an affirmative defense that Shaw and Piendak are entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … , those rights were clearly established.

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Independent School District 11

678 N.W.2d 651 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 6, 2004

Second, an employee following the protocol would not be protected by common law official immunity unless the decision adopting the protocol involved sufficient judgment and discretion to qualify for official immunity. … Moreover, there was no clearly-established law in Minnesota that put Peterson on notice that state OSHA regulations were applicable beyond the employer-employee relationship.

Hurt v. Parker

462 S.W.3d 403 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · May 1, 2015

established priorities and needs.” … Thus, the principal was entitled to qualified immunity.

Harris v. Board of Education

105 F.3d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1997

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … him his salary and benefits violated clearly established law.

Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming

821 F.3d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 15, 2016

It is sufficient to hold that, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, Officer Riggs did not violate clearly established law, and he therefore was protected by qualified immunity. … Turning to the clearly established law question, we must first ask whether the Ohio law defining obstruction of official business is clearly established. We conclude that it is.

Mangino v. Incorporated Village of Patchogue

808 F.3d 951 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 22, 2015

‐ immunity  grounds  because,  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  conduct,  although there was a clearly established right to be free from abuse  of  process  under  New  York  law,  there  was  no  clearly  established  right … We  need  not,  and  do  not,  resolve  this  confusion  here,  as  its  very  existence  establishes  that  Nudo  is  entitled  to  qualified  immunity.8  “[T]he  qualified  immunity  defense . . . provides  ample  protection

Calderón-Garnier v. Sánchez-Ramos

439 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct at issue.

Porter Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Ascension Parish School Board

301 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 21, 2004

Whether Conrad Braud is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity Qualified-immunity protects officials from section 1983 liability provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, the Court finds that Braud is entitled to qualified immunity even if Adam’s rights were found to be clearly established. 126 2.

David K. Huskey v. City of San Jose Joan Gallo George Rios Ralph Greene

204 F.3d 893 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 24, 2000

immunity because the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. … immunity because those rights were not clearly established.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Margarito Salmon, Magdalena Salmon, Individually and as Next Friend for Margarito Salmon, Jr. v. Martin R. Schwarz and Arturo A. Gonzalez

948 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 31, 1991

In Morfin , a qualified immunity case, the court was asked to decide for the first time whether the plaintiffs, teachers, had a clearly established right in 1985 to associate with a labor union other than their exclusive … deciding whether or not a right was clearly established.”

Teresa Graham v. Shannon Barnette

970 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 17, 2020

The officers respond that probable cause is not the correct standard and that, even if it was, the standard was not clearly established, meaning they are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established.

Manzer v. TOWN OF ANSON

771 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 23, 2011

The Plaintiffs then argue that the second element of the qualified immunity test — whether their rights were clearly established — is met. Id. at 12-13. … The Barton Court, in its own qualified immunity analysis, held that in 2006 and 2007, it was clearly established that a campaign of harassment could support a First Amendment retaliation claim if the harassment would deter

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … 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 statutory

Hodgson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

963 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 30, 1997

The Defendants, however, insist that this claim be dismissed on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. 13 Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to actions … Once a defendant has raised a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the violation of a clearly established right. See Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176 (citing Rakovich, 850 F.2d at 1209 ).

Johnson v. Clifton

74 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1996

A public official may immediately appeal a denial of qualified immunity where the disputed issue involves whether or not the defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established law. … clearly established law.

Tricoci v. Blackman

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 27, 2024

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity when performing a discretionary function that is objectively lawful in light of clearly established law and the information an officer possessed at the time. … Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 78 (2017) ("Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights or which a reasonable person would have known.")

Peete v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County

486 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2007

clearly established." … The Court held that Champion's arrest and restraint by police constituted a clearly established unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and denied the police officers' argument that they were entitled to qualified

Schreiner v. Hodge

504 P.3d 410 · Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 18, 2022

But not every act involving an element of judgment will qualify for immunity. … In addition, the § 1983 plaintiff faces the towering barrier of qualified immunity.

Weicherding v. Riegel

981 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 1997

Qualified immunity protects a state official’s discretionary actions so long as the official’s actions co not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Id. … In the qualified immunity context, this Court must determine whether, at the time Plaintiff was discharged, it was clearly established that his interest outweighed the State’s interest. Gregorich, 54 F.3d at 416 .