Case law

Ying Jing Gan v. The City Of New York

996 F.2d 522 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 1, 1993

Such qualified immunity from suit is appropriate if a prosecutor's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that the prosecutor was entitled to qualified immunity because he had no clearly established duty to protect at the time of the witness's death in 1982. Id. at 102 .

Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2016

The court also held that its conclusions in each respect were supported by clearly established law and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. … In the absence of clearly established law that squarely governs the situation here, qualified immunity is appropriate on the knock-and-announce claim. Id. at 309.

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.

Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory, Michael Bailey Jane Bailey Billy Bailey v. D.H. Kennedy D.B. Whitley Mike Crisp City of Hickory

349 F.3d 731 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 17, 2003

As discussed below, accepting the facts as the district court 2 viewed them in denying qualified immunity, the police officers violated clearly established federal law. … official's conduct did not violate clearly established law."

Walker ex rel. T.W. v. City of New York

63 F. Supp. 3d 301 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 5, 2014

Defendants Robinson and White Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity 1) Caseworker Qualified Immunity “Immunity ordinarily should be decided by the court long before trial.” Hunter v. … Individual government actors performing discretionary tasks are entitled to qualified immunity if: “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant

Cox v. Maine State Police

324 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, D. Maine · May 27, 2004

The crux of the defendants’ objection is the third component of qualified immunity: whether an objectively reasonable officer would have understood that the arrest violated Cox’s clearly established constitutional right to … in the qualified immunity analysis.

William C. Wardlaw v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal

1 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1993

Qualified immunity protects a government official from suits for damages if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In general, qualified immunity extends to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Penate v. Sullivan

73 F.4th 10 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

In the alternative, the district court found that Detective Sullivan was entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established that officers were required to either knock and announce in this situation … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages "unless their conduct violated 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Lawless v.

Witzke v. City of Bismarck

718 N.W.2d 586 · North Dakota Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2006

of the State’s case at trial, and other conduct intimately associated with the judicial process, but that prosecutors have only the protection of qualified immunity when functioning in the role of an administrator or investigative … Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, while an official with qualified immunity must establish his or her conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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.” 

Moffitt v. Town Of Brookfield

950 F.2d 880 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 20, 1991

legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." … More precisely, furthermore, it had been clearly established that a contract may vest a right or interest that requires due process protection, see Board of Regents v.

NUON v. City of Lowell

768 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 4, 2011

The principle of qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages when his conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … On this point, Kinney would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Fortunato Ex Rel. Fortunato v. Handler

969 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1996

Qualified Immunity Generally, governmental officials carrying out discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Under any of the panel members’ views expressed in City of Philadelphia, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the use of deadly force, which did not violate the “clearly established law”

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

Altony Brooks v. Captain Jacumin

924 F.3d 104 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 10, 2019

In the alternative, the officers invoked qualified immunity: Even if Brooks’s Eighth Amendment rights had been violated by the malicious use of force, they contended, the law was not so clearly established that they would … immunity grounds because the law did not clearly establish that violation.

Fultz v. Whittaker

261 F. Supp. 2d 767 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 2003

Defendants argue that this evidence establishes that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiffs remaining claims. … The final steps in the qualified immunity analysis require the Court to determine whether the right Whittaker allegedly violated was a “clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known

Holley v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, NY

625 F. Supp. 2d 131 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2009

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate

Meyers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.

2020 Ark. 136 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 9, 2020

They were not involved in employment decisions at Arkansas Steel Associates, such as hiring or firing employees, paying wages, training, providing workers’ compensation or other benefits, or establishing work schedules. … In other words, “referential and qualifying phrases, where no contrary intention appears, relate only to the last antecedent.”

Poston v. Unified School District No. 387

37 Kan. App. 2d 694 · Court of Appeals of Kansas · Apr 27, 2007

The District claimed that Poston’s injury occurred in an area that was close enough to the indoor gymnasium to qualify as an “open area” for purposes of recreational use immunity. … The court noted that there was an intent by the legislature to “establish a broad application of recreational use immunity.” 273 Kan. at 592 . In Robison v. State, 30 Kan.

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.