Case law

Logiodice v. Trustees of Maine Central Institute

135 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 5, 2001

to dismissal based on qualified immunity. … are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mason Ex Rel. Mason v. Schenectady City School District

879 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 21, 1993

There is, in short, no controversy about whether punitive damages are available against individual defendants sued in their individual capacities. 5 (5) QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individual defendants claim entitlement to qualified … The individual defendants seek qualified immunity, however.

Masciotta v. Clarkstown Central School District

136 F. Supp. 3d 527 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields & “government official ] from liability for civil damages insofar as [his or her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because qualified immunity.

Henry v. Ryan

775 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1991

Government officials enjoy immunity from civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “Closely analogous cases, those decided before the defendants acted, ... are required to find that a constitutional right is clearly established.” Powers v.

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.

Gavonna Willis v. Juanita Mills

141 F.4th 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” … The district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity was proper.

Lee v. Cline

149 Md. App. 38 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 26, 2002

In Lee’s case, the circumstances do not so clearly establish that there was a second stop. … The Qualified Immunity Debate At the summary judgment hearing, Lee’s attorney argued that, even if the evidence was insufficient to establish that Cline acted with malice, Lee must be allowed to proceed on his constitutional

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.”

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 .

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.

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

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

Graham v. Gray

827 F.2d 679 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 1, 1987

established law." … issue to the district court in one of his motions for dismissal and appealed the denial of that motion, we might have held in his favor: "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established

Singleton v. Doe

210 F. Supp. 3d 359 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2016

Defendants also argue that, irrespective of Plaintiffs liberty interest, they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted reasonably and not in violation of a clearly established right. (Id. at 8.) … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

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.

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.

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.

Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority

774 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 1, 2011

Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity as a matter of law was that the First Amendment right to intimate association was not clearly established for dating, as opposed to married, relationships when their alleged acts … Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity is the most difficult one to understand, because they never identified what they were doing that required qualified immunity for racial slurs.