Case law

Julie Ann Hamstead v. Matthew Harvey, individually and as Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County, West Virgina, and the Jefferson County Commission, a corporate body

West Virginia Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2022

To overcome qualified immunity, a claimant must establish that the employee or official knowingly violated a clearly established law or acted maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively. … Thus, the analysis turns to whether the acts alleged by the plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity because the acts violated some clearly established right of which a reasonable public official would have known, or were

CHABAK v. Monroy

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2007

This immunity is absolute for mandated reporters and qualified for other individuals who report child abuse (voluntary reporters). … Monroy’s statements to the police clearly arose from protected activity, as is established by the case on which Chabak, and ultimately the trial court, relied.

Glenn W. Phelps, Jr. v. Robert M. Coy, Jr., Christin Stutes

286 F.3d 295 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2002

Coy’s qualified immunity motion. … A claim of qualified immunity presents two closely linked questions: whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs rights and whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Angela McCullough v. Ernest N. Finley, Jr.

907 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2018

The Mayor and the Chiefs Enjoy Qualified and State-Agent Immunity from the Jailees’ Complaint. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability unless the officials ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Lanman v. Hinson

529 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2008

affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields public officials who perform discretionary functions from tort liability, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights viewed under the applicable constitutional standard

Karen Kelly Austin, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of Minors, Renee Chevelle Henry and Raenell Lynn Henry v. Ronald Borel and Janenne Trahan

830 F.2d 1356 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 21, 1987

Qualified immunity shields only that conduct not violative of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 14 Absolute immunity, in contrast, precludes any action for damages, so … established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.

Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo

279 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 19, 2003

Government officials are generally immune from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable person should have known of at the time of the conduct … Second, these rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Jorge E. Cancel Lugo v. Carlos Alvarado, Etc.

819 F.2d 5 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · May 26, 1987

The district court ruled that where the discovery was not directed solely at damage issues related to the qualified immunity defense (i.e., “matters of personal motivations, related to the subjective components of the qualified … The qualified immunity inquiry involves not only the question of "whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions,” Mitchell v.

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.

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.

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).

Rhoades v. Clinkscale

Superior Court of Delaware · Jul 20, 2016

on the ground that a purported right was not clearly established, question of whether the purported right exists at without resolving the plied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the a>l?> all. … Thus, State Defendants argue that qualified immunity applies to Plaintiff’s claims against them, because Plaintiff has failed to identify a right to a particular procedure or protocol that has been clearly established by

Ransom v. Baltimore County

111 F. Supp. 2d 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 11, 2000

In assessing a claim for qualified immunity, the Court must: (i) identify the right allegedly violated; (ii) determine whether the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the incident; and (iii … Because she is clearly protected by qualified privilege, the Court will not address her argument.

Clerkley v. Holcomb

121 F.4th 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2024

Our review is thus confined to qualified immunity’s two prongs: whether the facts “suffice to show a legal violation” and “whether that law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. … The district court correctly denied him qualified immunity, so we affirm. 8 Holcomb finally argues that the district court erred by implying that a jury could decide the issue of clearly established law

Gregg v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

661 F. Supp. 2d 842 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2009

Telb, 831 F.2d 673 (6th Cir.1987), when the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must include in the pleadings factual allegations necessary to support the conclusion that the defendants violated clearly established … Gregg’s constitutional rights, it is unnecessary to reach the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity as to these defendants. See Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir.2003).

Wynn v. City of Lakeland

727 F. Supp. 2d 1309 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2010

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To receive qualified immunity protection, the government official must first establish that he was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged violation. Cottone v.

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

Cynthia Archer v. John Chisholm

870 F.3d 603 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

It  granted  the  Investigators’  motion  for  judgment  on  the  pleadings on qualified immunity grounds and noted that the  Prosecutors also were entitled to qualified immunity.  …  right that was clearly established at the time of  the challenged conduct.” 

Hedrick v. Roberts

183 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified Immunity State actors, such as prison officials performing discretionary functions, enjoy qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In determining whether a state actor is entitled to qualified immunity, a court “must (1) identify the right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident

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.