Case law

Simons v. Marshall

369 Ark. 447 · Supreme Court of Arkansas · Apr 26, 2007

In this regard, Simons argues that Marshall failed to allege facts sufficient to establish malice and in the absence of malice, he is entitled to qualified immunity under section 19-10-305(a). … There, this court recognized that an official is immune from suit if his actions did not violate clearly established principles of law of which a reasonable person would have knowledge.

Myers v. Potter

422 F.3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 7, 2005

violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.” … by Officer Hutchins was clearly established at the time Myers was taken into police custody.

Kissner v. Orr

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 17, 2022

The Court, however, did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Orr or Rogers based on qualified immunity. … See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 (“If the law at that time was not clearly established, an official could not reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor could he fairly be said to “know” that

Craig v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity applies to federal and state actors unless (1) the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate a violation, and (2) the alleged right was clearly established … Supp. 623, 630-33 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 889 F.2d 1286 (3d Cir. 1989) (denying qualified immunity to a prison board based on prisoners’ clearly established right to a “safe prison environment” free from inmate violence

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County

649 F. App'x 665 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 2016

Thus, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas

116 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 3, 1997

The judges filed a response in which they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … Clearly established law will not defeat qualified immunity if “an objectively reasonable view of the facts” might lead an official not to realize that he was breaking the law. Matherne v.

Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety

237 Ariz. 414 · Arizona Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

Before trial, DPS moved for a jury instruction on qualified immunity under § 12-820.02(A)(7). … , qualified immunity, and affirmative defenses for public entities and employees).

Ortiz v. Morris

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Apr 27, 2020

Following discovery, Morris moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Whether an officer is immune "turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the action] was taken" (quotations and citation omitted

Armstrong v. City of Greensboro

190 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2016

They also argue for *464 dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting Plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently that Daughtry deprived him of his “clearly established constitutional rights.” … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Vance v. Barrett

345 F.3d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

deciding whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity: “(1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established? … In 1995, we held that our law regarding retaliation against inmates was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes, see Schroeder v.

State v. Gear

236 Ariz. 289 · Court of Appeals of Arizona · Nov 20, 2014

“a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history.” … ¶17 In construing statutes, we apply a word’s “usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.”

Burke v. Twp. of Cheltenham

742 F. Supp. 2d 660 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2010

Federal “qualified immunity” has been established by case law, Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Connecticut ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty

346 F.3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 30, 2003

Disagreeing with Appellants, the district court denied qualified immunity after determining that Yolovar’s rights were clearly established at the time of enforcement and that Appellants’ enforcement of the Nonresident Lobster … Qualified immunity is warranted if either *102 (1) the official’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in

Robert O’CONNOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Walter H. Clark, Robert E. Paaswell, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

985 F.2d 1362 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1993

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.

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.”

Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District

882 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 1989

Bradford Area School Dist., 667 F.Supp. 1088, 1098 (W.D.Pa.1987). *723 On appeal, defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they had no clearly established duty to protect Stoneking, and therefore … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants’ position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Sampson v. City of Schenectady

160 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, N.D. New York · Aug 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity 1. … General Standard for Qualified Immunity The affirmative defense of qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Kameron Evans v. John Dodd

114 F.4th 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2024

Qualified immunity will shield the Officers “from legal liability unless: (1) [they] violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable officer would know of the … “Clearly established” means that “[t]he precedent must be clear enough that every reasonable official would interpret it to establish the particular rule the plaintiff seeks to apply.” Brown v. City of St.

Jerry Turpin and Bonnie Turpin v. The County of Rock, Nebraska Galen Svoboda, in His Official Capacity and Jim Anderson, in His Official Capacity

262 F.3d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Qualified immunity shields governmental officials from personal liability if their actions, even if unlawful, were “nevertheless objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of the events in … The inquiry in determining whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity focuses on whether the Appellants have asserted a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right and, if so, whether there are genuine

Doe v. Flaherty

623 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

We first address the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official such as Wilcher from civil lawsuits when her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”