Case law

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 .

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

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

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

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.

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.”

Neague v. Cynkar

258 F.3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 25, 2001

Id. 14 This court has held that the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir. 1993). … It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis.

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

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.”

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.

Robert Pachaly, Jr. v. City of Lynchburg R.D. Viar William G. Petty, and Commonwealth of Virginia

897 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 2, 1990

A government official performing a discretionary function does so clothed with qualified immunity shielding him from civil liability as long as his actions do not violate clearly established tenets of constitutional law. … judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant's conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims

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.

Kyle Beatty v. Clinton Gardner

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 16, 2026

But because that limit was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity shields them from liability. So we will affirm the District Court’s summary judgment for the officers. I. … Several of our sister circuits have previously granted qualified immunity from similar claims, reasoning that there is no clearly established “First Amendment right to re- main silent when questioned by the police.”

Lyles v. Sparks

79 F.3d 372 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 19, 1996

but also of federal law that was "clearly established" at the time the alleged conduct occurred. … established, the district court erred in declining to afford Green and Krautheim qualified immunity from the surviving constitutional tort claims against them.

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

Hawley v. Nelson

968 F. Supp. 1372 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Apr 4, 1997

Qualified immunity is available (1) if the law as it relates to the relevant facts was not clearly established or (2) if a reasonable official could have believed the alleged conduct was lawful in light of the clearly established … clearly established and defendants are entitled to at least qualified immunity from suit.

Pittman v. Nelms

87 F.3d 116 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 26, 1996

The immunity level consists of two sub-issues--whether the law governing the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident, Siegert v. … But it invokes immunity prematurely if the facts indicate no constitutional violation, clearly established or otherwise 3 Like Pittman, Graham grounded his claim on multiple provisions of the Constitution.

Anglin v. City of Aspen

552 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 29, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability when they are performing discretionary functions that do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.