Case law

Dingle v. District of Columbia

571 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims of false arrest. 5 Construing the facts in favor of plaintiffs deposition testimony, the Court finds the officers … Applying the two-part analysis to this action, it appears from this record that Officer Moore violated a clearly established right.

Smothers v. Gibson

778 F.2d 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 27, 1985

ANALYSIS Whether an official may prevail in his qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective unreasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … The Cummins Unit argues that it should be accorded qualified immunity from liability for damages because the law of prison visitor strip searches was not clearly established in 1981.

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.

Kellogg v. City of Gary

562 N.E.2d 685 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

qualified immunity defense depends upon the "objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to *704 clearly established law." … qualified immunity.

Orem v. Rephann

523 F.3d 442 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 28, 2008

Hence, qualified immunity will shield Deputy Rephann from suit if “a reasonable officer” could have believed tasering Orem was lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information Deputy Re-phann possessed … Rather, Deputy Rephann used the taser to punish or intimidate Orem — a use that is not objectively reasonable, is contrary to clearly established law, and not protected by qualified immunity. Y.

Greene v. Friend of the Court, Polk County

406 N.W.2d 433 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 15, 1987

City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), serves, we believe, to abrogate any qualified immunity under the facts which plaintiff may be able to establish at trial. … We find that DHS is clearly an alter ego agency of the state of Iowa for purposes of sharing in its immunity. See Iowa Code § 25A.2(1).

Sepatis v. City and County of San Francisco

217 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … clearly established at the time of the violation.

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

Herrera v. Davila

272 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 17, 2003

Id. 1) Qualified Immunity and Indifference to Medical Needs Qualified immunity shields officials from having to pay for damages resulting from violations of § 1983 provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established … it occurred, transgressed a clearly established right.”

Violano v. Fernandez

280 Conn. 310 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Oct 17, 2006

Specifically, the majority concluded that qualified governmental immunity applied to Fernandez’ alleged actions because they were discretionary in nature. Id., 12. … Further, the majority determined that none of the exceptions to Fernandez’ qualified governmental immunity applied. Id.

Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2021

they therefore fail to establish qualified immunity. … Nevertheless, the court still concludes that O’Hara and McGonigle are entitled to qualified immunity because, as detailed above, the right at issue in this case was not clearly established at the time of the facts of this

Jane Doe v. Petaluma City School District

54 F.3d 1447 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 12, 1995

"On review of a denial of qualified immunity, '[w]e have jurisdiction only to decide if defendant's conduct violated ... clearly established [law].' " Pelletier v. … Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense from suit, not merely from liability, "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity

Julius L. Finkelstein v. Louis P. Bergna

881 F.2d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 2, 1989

I An official is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The district court correctly concluded that Finkelstein alleged a violation of clearly established law and we accordingly affirm the denial of qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim.

Estate of Henson v. Wichita County, Tex.

652 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials sued pursuant to § 1983 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must prove Dr. Bolin violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Gibson v.

Risbridger v. Connelly

275 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 4, 2002

Three other circuits, on the other hand, have held that a right to refuse to identify oneself during a valid Terry stop was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. See Oliver v. … Because the right must have been clearly established at the time the officer act *572 ed in order to defeat the claim to qualified immunity, we do not discuss the reasoning of these cases. .

Colman v. Vasquez

142 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2001

Colman’s Complaint does not allege a violation of clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

Christopher Lockhart v. Siloam Springs, Arkansas

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 10, 2026

This is a two-pronged inquiry: “In a § 1983 action, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established.” … Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 42 (2019) (“The clearly established right must be defined with specificity. This Court has repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi

876 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 22, 2017

“A qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. … “The . dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’ ” Mullenix v.

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

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she