Case 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).

Southerland v. City of New York

680 F.3d 127 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 22, 2012

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 237, the pertinent 4 qualified immunity inquiry is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the 5 defendant’s actions, see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. … Thus, even if the right at issue “was clearly established in certain 12 respects,” a state actor “is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable 13 competence could disagree’ on the legality of the

Thompson v. City of Minneapolis

707 N.W.2d 669 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · Jan 10, 2006

Rather, the specific conduct challenged was the ministerial decision of whether to instruct the student to make rip cuts with the blade guard disengaged as clearly dictated by an established protocol. Id. at 656-57 . … Anderson, the Eighth Circuit stated that, in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were disputed.

Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents

594 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 17, 2008

This Court held in its August 4, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 2986389 , that there is no question of law as to whether the following rights were clearly established: (1) the right not to be terminated from employment at a public uni-versify … established law.

DeHart v. Lehman

9 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 1998

from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity; and D) Plaintiff was not denied equal protection of the law. 3 Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary … Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right

Garcia-Rodriguez v. Gomm

169 F. Supp. 3d 1221 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 14, 2016

Qualified Immunity “Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the. time of the challenged conduct.” … Pursuant to Quinn , 780 at 1004, the court determines that this issue is most efficiently resolved by first analyzing the “clearly established” prong of the SLC Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Foulks v. Cole County, Missouri

991 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 14, 1993

The defendants have failed to show that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Thus, we review Foulks' claim under the clearly established constitutional standard set forth in Estelle

Benavidez v. Howard

931 F.3d 1225 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In this motion, Howard asked the state court to prohibit Plaintiffs and others “from engaging in conduct directed at 5 Under the second prong of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show that the right was “clearly … Al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 744 (2011) (“Because [the defendant] did not violate clearly established law, we need not address the more difficult question whether he enjoys absolute immunity.”)

Al-Ra'id v. Ingle

69 F.3d 28 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 6, 1995

In assessing qualified immunity, we engage in a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether a plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right under the current state of the law. … Moreover, the defendants’ actions were not violative of clearly established law.

Arrington v. Dickerson

915 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jan 31, 1996

The court also reserved ruling on the qualified immunity issue. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Vicky M. v. Northeastern Educational Intermediate Unit

689 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2009

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position at all relevant times could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal … NEIU Defendants The individual NEIU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable official in their position could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established

Smith v. Norton Hospitals, Inc.

488 S.W.3d 23 · Court of Appeals of Kentucky · Mar 4, 2016

immunity. … established under the law.

Hernandez v. Parker

508 P.3d 947 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2022

Sheriff Parker asserted qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. … Defendants’ invocation of qualified immunity shifted the “heavy burden” to Plaintiff to establish that (1) the facts demonstrated a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at

Cook v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CTY. OF WYANDOTTE

966 F. Supp. 1049 · District Court, D. Kansas · May 29, 1997

The Court also finds that Officer Drake is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity would shield Officer Drake from suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that plaintiffs arrest was lawful in light of clearly established. law and information which Officer Drake possessed

Rodriguez v. Village of Ossining

918 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2013

Thus, qualified immunity provides protection to police officers faced with an excessive force claim unless the officers (1) “violated a constitutional right (2) that was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation … a qualified immunity defense.' ” Caban v.

Tickle v. Ballay

259 So. 3d 435 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 2018

In this regard, when "a prosecutor 'functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court' he is entitled only to qualified immunity." … As such, they clearly fall within the realm of prosecutorial immunity for activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Mr.

Mejia v. City of New York

119 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 5, 2000

Qualified Immunity The basic test for determining whether a public official is entitled to assert qualified immunity was established by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … : qualified immunity shields public 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 known

Akers v. Caperton

797 F. Supp. 514 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 30, 1992

Qualified Immunity The Defendants Gaston Caperton, Kenneth Dunn and Art Gleason assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Defendants assert an entitlement to qualified immunity since they were acting pursuant to statutory authority and they further allege that their conduct did not violate the Plaintiffs’ clearly established statutory or constitutional

Salter v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 04384 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 2025

We reject MEAN's contention that the phrase "manufacturer or seller of a qualified product" in section 7903 (5) (A) should be read to divorce "manufacturer" from "qualified product" and grant immunity to any manufacturer … As a result, we conclude that MEAN established that it is "engaged in the business" of manufacturing a qualified product under the PLCAA by establishing that it "devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing [its qualified

Smith v. Arkansas Department of Correction

103 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Dec 18, 1996

some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'" … of whether the alleged facts support a violation of clearly established law.