Case law

Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

835 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 18, 2011

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officer’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Grider v. … The officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to prove (a) that the officer violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights, and (b) that the right was clearly established.

J. J. v. City of San Diego

42 F.4th 990 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 15, 2021

Prong one of this test is therefore not satisfied, and qualified immunity applies on that basis. Prong two, the clearly established prong, confirms this result. … Thus, unless J.K.J. can show that on the date the officers encountered Jenkins, it was clearly established that their conduct was unlawful, qualified immunity applies also under prong two.

Williams v. City of Luling

802 F. Supp. 1518 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1992

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [police officer] would have known.” Harlow v. … for summary judgment raising the issue of qualified immunity.

Zulock v. Shures

441 F. App'x 294 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 22, 2010

Qualified immunity recognizes that the public interest is best served when officials can act “with independence and without fear of consequences” so long as their actions do not violate clearly established rights. … The second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis asks whether *303 the constitutional violation in question “involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Opinion No.

Arkansas Attorney General Reports · Dec 23, 2003

The test for the applicability of qualified immunity turns upon the "objective legal reasonableness of the action," assessed in light of legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. … The immunity is "qualified" because it does not obtain where the activity is in violation of clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known. Robinson v.

Ronda Marsh v. Phelps County

902 F.3d 745 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Aug 15, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in their individual capacities if their conduct did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right; (2) the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) there exists a genuine issue of material

Hathaway v. Bazany

507 F.3d 312 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Brosseau, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), makes it highly unlikely that the Hathaways could prevail in establishing that Bazany infringed on a clearly established right because of its emphasis on the “‘hazy border between excessive

Michael Romano v. Ivan Canuteson

11 F.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Dec 17, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity recently has been discussed on a number of occasions by this Court. The following excerpt from Zinker v. … qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Hurley

51 F. App'x 694 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Nov 21, 2002

We agree that Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Hurley and Spanski are entitled to qualified immunity. 1 AFFIRMED.

Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield

244 Conn. 101 · Supreme Court of Connecticut · Mar 17, 1998

The defendants moved to set aside the jury verdict, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that the imminent harm exception to the qualified governmental immunity doctrine applied to this case. … [A] municipal employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance of a governmental duty, but he may be liable if he misperforms a ministerial act, as opposed to a discretionary act.”

Stamps v. Town of Framingham

38 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 24, 2014

Stamps was objectively reasonable; and (3) Duncan is entitled to qualified immunity because a constitutional right to be free from unintentional shootings was not clearly established at the time of the incident. II. … For purposes of the second step of the qualified-immunity analysis, “[a] right is clearly established only if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Grossman v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2025

While Defendant Rezak raises a qualified immunity defense in his support brief, courts in this Circuit have long held that qualified immunity “turns on factual questions that cannot be resolved at [the motion to dismiss … Supp. 2d 659, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[r]esolution of qualified immunity depends on the determination of certain factual questions that cannot be answered at this stage of the litigation.” Denton v.

Rivera-García v. Román-Carrero

938 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 3, 2013

For that reason, I proceed to his argument for qualified immunity. 2. … Qualified Immunity and “Clearly Established” Rights Sosa-Vega asserts that even if the Fourth Amendment properly applies, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Eastland County Cooperative Dispatch, Clay Coffey, Wayne Bradford, Ken Wheeler, and Gerald Cozart v. Elnor Maxine Poyner, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of William Euell Poyner, and as Sole Heir of William Euell Poyner

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) · Oct 25, 2001

The motions for summary judgment implicated the doctrines of sovereign immunity, official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Was that general prohibition the source for clearly established law which the officers violated in this case?

Martinez-Baez v. Rey-Hernandez

394 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 14, 2005

Healthy , qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. We discuss each. i. Mt. … The procedures regarding qualified immunity allow for judicial review, via certiorari, on the qualified immunity issue. Id. at 207, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Cole v. Barnes

128 F. Supp. 3d 1002 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants Barnes and George contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs First and Fourth Amendment claims because the Sheriffs Department had probable cause, in the … Qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position

Smith v. Lee

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for claims against them in their individual capacity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … If Stewart can establish the violation of his constitutional right to be free of excessive force, the Court will then analyze the second element of qualified immunity, which is whether the right was clearly established

Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez

680 F. Supp. 2d 1318 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 13, 2010

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that in this Circuit the law can be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes, “only by decisions of the U.S. … to qualified immunity.

Norfleet v. ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants' actions do not violate "clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Watenza v. City of Dayton, 21984 (2-22-2008)

2008 Ohio 749 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 2008

In addition, the defendants argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that Appellant failed to establish a § 1983 complaint against the City. … Qualified immunity raised as a defense 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