Case law

Brooke Somers v. Anthony Devine

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 24, 2025

Indeed, as a matter of constitutional avoidance, we often grant qualified immunity based on a determination “that the purported right was not clearly established without resolving the ‘often more difficult … Determining whether a right is “clearly established” cannot be done in isolation from the perceived facts of the case in which the immunity is claimed.

Mary Roe v. Texas Department Of Protective And Regulatory Services

299 F.3d 395 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 13, 2002

established" in the context of qualified immunity. … established" for purposes of qualified immunity. 19 It is difficult to argue that a matter of law is clearly established for state actors in this circuit where this court has not opined on the issue in question and the other

Starks v. City of Minneapolis

6 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, D. Minnesota · May 14, 1998

Qualified immunity protects police officers from liability if a reasonable officer could have believed his or her conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the officers at the … “An official loses immunity if, first, the law he violated was clearly established at the time of the violation, and second, the applicability of the law to his particular action was evident.”

Allen v. Thompson

14 F. Supp. 3d 885 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 9, 2014

Because Brewer has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that Grace’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that clearly established right, Grace is not entitled to qualified immunity on Brewer’s unreasonable … Grace focuses his argument for qualified immunity on whether there was a clearly established First Amendment right to record police activity. This argument misses the point.

Swartwood v. County of San Diego

84 F. Supp. 3d 1093 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 30, 2014

Qualified immunity. … Defendants argue that Bryson and Curiel are entitled to qualified immunity because the governing law was not clearly established when R.S. and D.S. were removed. (De/s.’ MSJ, p. 12.)

Nichols v. Bourbon County Sheriff's Dept.

26 F. Supp. 3d 634 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 12, 2014

a clearly established constitutional right. … Sheriff Matthews is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. D.

Shultz v. Allegheny County

835 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2011

Accordingly, absolute or qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leve *25 to v. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Horne v. Coughlin

191 F.3d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Aug 25, 1999

was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … Because the Ninth Circuit believed this constitutional right was already clearly established, it had denied qualified immunity. See id. at 1712 .

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Phillip Ransom v. Anthony Grisafe

790 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 22, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials “ ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … To overcome the defense of qualified immuni *811 ty, Ransom must have shown that the officers’ actions violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of their alleged misconduct.

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Zayas

671 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 17, 1987

III.Qualified Immunity In actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a defense of qualified immunity from liability for damages is available to state executive officers performing discretionary functions, “insofar as their … conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 25, 2005

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802 , 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995) ("[T]he prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes. … must first reiterate our firm recognition that "the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is `clearly established law' in the Ninth Circuit, for qualified immunity purposes."

Cagle Ex Rel. Estate of Butler v. Sutherland

334 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

functions are e ntitled to qualified immunity ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Butler’s 15 Even if Jailer Cole had violated the Constitution, he likely would be entitled to qualified immunity, having violated no clearly established constitutional rights.

Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig

764 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 28, 1991

THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established … As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco

539 F.3d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Defendants now appeal *1196 the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for Sheriff Hennessey. 5 II We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Michelle Mammaro v. DCP&P

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Feb 19, 2016

This is why caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice that their conduct is a violation of the Constitution. … In this case, there was no such clearly established law, and qualified immunity covers the Division’s caseworkers.

Hartsoe v. Tucker

371 Mont. 539 · Montana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2013

¶8 Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 18 holds that immunity from suit may be established by a two-third vote of the Legislature. … ¶11 Hartsoe also raises issues of qualified immunity for state employees, and asserts a malicious prosecution claim for the first time on appeal.

Ham v. Greene

248 Conn. 508 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · May 4, 1999

Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe his … New Haven, supra, 950 F.2d 870 , first concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law only if, on the facts found, their conduct *523 either did not violate “ ‘clearly established . .

D.M. v. State

25 Neb. Ct. App. 596 · Nebraska Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2018

Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability for public officials sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) in their individual capacities, so long as the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.