Case law

Washpon v. Parr

561 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2008

unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … If it was not reasonable, then for purposes of determining qualified immunity we next ask the purely legal question of whether the law was sufficiently established that a reasonable officer would know his conduct was unlawful

Ngo v. Storlie

495 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 26, 2007

actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. … Here, we must ask whether Ngo’s right to be free from excessive force is clearly established.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Flowers v. Bennett

135 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Dec 11, 2000

Even without Hill, there is good reason to believe that “clearly established” authority exists to deny qualified immunity in this case. … In a qualified immunity analysis, two questions arise: (1) Does the plaintiff allege the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) Was the law that the public official is alleged to have violated clearly established

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.

Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff, Carroll W. Erickson v. Don Holloway, Pennington County Sheriff Pennington County, South Dakota, an Organized County in the State of South Dakota Jeff Birdsall, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Robert Johnle, Guard Employed by the Pennington County Jail Dan Carver, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Mary Evelyn Rogers, Pennington County Deputy Sheriff

77 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Feb 28, 1996

Carver and Rogers then returned Erickson to the jail. 5 On appeal, Johnle, Birdsall, and Carver assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate Erickson's clearly established constitutional rights … immunity.

Rivas v. City of Passaic

365 F.3d 181 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 26, 2004

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” … We note that Garcia and Rodriguez do not argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established as of November 1998.

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.

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

Katie Kindl v. City of Berkley

798 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2015

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To qualify as clearly established, “‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’” Brown v.

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

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.

Morrison-Tiffin v. Hampton

117 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1995

The individual defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. A. Equal Protection 1. … The test for qualified immunity was set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 73 L.

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.

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