Case law

Hoyer v. DiCocco

457 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 22, 2006

Qualified immunity is warranted if either (1) the official’s actions did *116 not violate clearly established law, or (2) even if the actions violated a clearly established law, the official was objectively reasonable in … Was the Violation Contrary to Clearly Established Law?

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Bradshaw v. Meyer

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 30, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … No clearly established law. Additionally, no clearly established law confirmed that Ontiveras’ actions were unconstitutional.

Womack v. Bradshaw

49 F. Supp. 3d 624 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 10, 2014

An officer is “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to inquire whether the “right that was violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Nichols v. City of Jackson

848 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 1994

Qualified Immunity Defendants next assert that Chief Donovan and Assistant Chief Graham are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person should have been aware. Harlow v.

Padilla Roman v. Hernandez Perez

381 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Aug 8, 2005

Maine, 118 F.3d 37, 53 (1st Cir.1997). 4 QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions *27 from civil damages, so long as their conduct does not violate clearly … A qualified immunity defense requires a three-part analysis: “The first inquiry is whether the constitutional right asserted by plaintiffs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Hale v. Emporia State University

265 F. Supp. 3d 1236 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jul 14, 2017

Qualified immunity shields a government official from a money damages award in his or her personal capacity “unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established” at … . *1247 Here, the court concludes that plaintiffs Complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish that the individual defendants violated a clearly established .constitutional right.

Heather Kerchen v. Univ. of Mich.

100 F.4th 751 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 6, 2024

Qualified immunity immunizes government officials from suit to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Although qualified immunity may generally be better resolved on a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must still sufficiently plead facts to show a clearly established constitutional violation

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9203, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1350, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,215, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2025 James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, James Senator Marks Tommy Marks David Marks v. John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and John R. Clarke William F. Grub Stephen W. Keane Michael Lavelle Gerald R. Poindexter Robert Vanleuven Ralph C. Weir, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and Robert G. Bailor Denise E. Coker Monte E. Gaunt Donald E. Johnson Richard J. Poole Nicolis E. Stanley Michael F. Yates, Gypsy Church of the Northwest v. Spokane County, and City of Spokane Robert Allen Earl L. Ennis Lawrence R. Freeman Clifford Harding Kenneth R. Krogh Larry M. Lindskog Jack E. Neumiller Andrew J. Pavlischak Sheldon Reeve, Gypsy Church of the Northwest, and Grover Marks v. Detective Rick Grabenstein

102 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 26, 1997

Once again, under the clearly established law of Ybarra v. … inspection at that location did not violate clearly established law.

Almond v. Tarver

468 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2006

A defendant "is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct." Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-pronged inquiry: "The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Nieto v. San Perlita Independent School District

894 F.2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

the plaintiff’s clearly established right to protected speech. … Consequently, the defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right secured to Nieto. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal from this suit.

Mencer v. Bd. of Ed./Birmingham, AL

134 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 1998

Thus, the court did not deny Hammonds qualified immunity based only on "evidence sufficiency" but on its belief that a reasonable person in Hammonds' position would have known his conduct violated clearly established law … Thus, if we are confronted with an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, we may exercise our discretion to review the district court's preliminary determination as a means of reaching the issue of clearly established

Vassallo Ex Rel. K v. v. Lando

591 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 2008

Legal Standard “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 … The Second Circuit has held that under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “a right is clearly established if (1) the law is defined with reasonable clarity, (2) the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit has recognized the

Leary v. Livingston County

528 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2008

As to Stone, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity; as to McGuekin, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the force used was de minimis. *441 I. … To overcome a qualified-immunity defense in the setting of a constitutional tort, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.”

Milfort v. Prevete

922 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 13, 2013

A qualified immunity defense is established if “(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 such law … Because there is “no question that [these rights] were clearly established at the time of the incident,” a point that Defendants concede, Defendants’ actions are protected by qualified immunity only if it was objectively

Gaztambide v. Gaztambide

794 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 20, 1992

Kaiter specifically held that: the issue of immunity must be subject to one interlocutory appeal in order to establish the defendant’s right to avoid trial altogether. … the issue of qualified immunity.

Avery v. King

110 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 1, 1997

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, Officer King was entitled to qualified immunity if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Avery’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed

McKinney v. Huntsville Sch. Dist.

345 F. Supp. 3d 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 12, 2018

Counts IV and VI: Qualified Immunity Certain government officials who are performing "discretionary functions" are immune from civil action as long as their conduct does not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Courts analyze two elements to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official violated plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (2) whether those rights were clearly established. Saucier v.

Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission

275 Conn. 38 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Aug 16, 2005

Because the parties in the present matter assume that the immunity provided by § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) is identical to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts at common law, we also assume, without … and qualified immunity; (2) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 25-43c; (3) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557g; (4) the immunity afforded by General Statutes § 52-557j; and (5) the plaintiffs own

Hendon v. City of Piedmont

163 F. Supp. 2d 1316 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 11, 2001

.-, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (2001), where the Supreme Court held that qualified immunity should be granted on the excessive force claim in that case because the plaintiff had not “identified any case demonstrating a clearly established … The panel found that the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the amount of force he used was unlawful.